I’m not one to give trigger warnings. That said, I’m giving one now.
Things have a tendency to not go as planned. Several weeks ago, a dear friend’s health declined rapidly – unexpectedly, even – and he passed away. Even after days of relative sleeplessness, I found it hard to rest. My thoughts kept turning and churning and refusing to let me be until I wrote them down. This is an exercise in catharsis.
Some of my readers knew F_____. One of my regular readers is his wife.
[edit] For the record, I have permission and outright encouragement from the family to share this. [/edit]
Photography 101 has its challenges. Monday’s pop of color was no different.
I took another sunrise photo and thought that’d be it:
And then inspiration struck as I was cleaning out my supply cabinet and found a hoard of forgotten pencils – and just in time for standardized testing, too!
Stand Apart
by J.E.
People always say to be yourself until you do, then
you find that everybody lied to you: "Your hair is
too short, too long, too bright, too dark; your
music's too loud, too goth, too punk, too rock; your
art is too something; why can't you just be
normal like us? You're so fake, focused on the
external; fit back in the box in our monochrome
world where no one stands out, no sensitivities
curdled."
So we hide ourselves away behind a facade of what
passes for normal; believing we're flawed we put on
a show for the world to behold while the things that
make us us grow withered and cold. In a world that
sees in charcoal grey and midnight black we see in
bright neon hues and refuse to go back to the way
things were before. Choosing rather to wrestle our
innermost demons, we risk and dare all to be the
yellow pencil.
Personally, I like the first pencil photograph best; what do you think?
First, I am indebted to Mr. Matthew Desmond, whose article “The Seven Types Of Republicans And How To Debate Them” served as inspiration for this post.
OK, a bit more than inspiration – I outright copied him for most of this post. As I was reading his original article, I thought “Hey! All you have to do is replace ‘Republican’ with ‘Democrat,’ adjust the examples, and you’d have the same article from the opposite viewpoint!”
So, that’s what I did; I copied the entire article and made the proper adjustments to reflect a conservative viewpoint (as seen by an Independent).
Second, I intend this as an Onion-esque “report.”
Do Not Take This Seriously!
Third, for the sake of honesty, let me clarify my political position: I am an independent and think both major political parties need a time-out for several decades. Combine the two articles and you’ll understand what it’s like as an Independent ignored by both parties (except when convenient, of course).
Enjoy.
The Seven Types Of Democrats And How To Debate Them
Anyone discussing politics with a Democrat recognizes that there are a wide variety of Democrats, each possessing their own debating style. In this article, I attempt to break down the basic types of Democrats, the obvious flaws in their views, and how you can best debate them. I’ll start with the most intelligent and work my way down.
Educated Democrats are the rarest of all Democrats. Occasionally you find one in public or in an online forum. These Democrats can be the most difficult to deal with. They know everything there is to know about their position… from a Democratic perspective. They’ve educated themselves on all the reasons why their position is correct, and are not concerned with anything that contradicts their beliefs.
The problem with this type of Democrat’s views:
Anyone with the Internet and five minutes can find something that thoroughly discredits their version of the “facts.” Even when confronted with contradictory facts, they continue to fall back on their original arguments; try to change the subject to something they are more comfortable talking about, or start expressing opinions with no factual merit.
What to remember when debating them:
Keep them on-topic. Don’t let them ignore your counterpoints and then change the subject on you. They’re masters of that, but if you can keep them on topic, eventually they will just start expressing opinions to which you can say “do you have any facts to back that up?”
Media Democrats are the angriest group of Democrats. They watch television and think it makes them an expert on politics. The only knowledge they have of politics are parroted talking points without any facts to back them up. When you defeat them in debate, they will resort to calling you names like “conservative,” “bigot,” “woman-hater”; “racist,” etc. They think all conservatives want to take their money and give it to big business, especially oil.
The problem with this type of Democrat’s views:
They have no idea what they are talking about. Usually they’re just repeating things they’ve heard from Anderson Copper, Brian Williams, or Piers Morgan (a British national who has neither a stake in nor an understanding of American government). They think that all conservatives want to restrict their freedoms and clearly don’t know what the word “conservative” means, or what conservatives have contributed to our country and our freedoms. They think President Obama is comparable to Jesus (or his non-religious equivalent) for passing healthcare reform. They accuse you of watching FOX News if you don’t agree with them. They call you ignorant but expect you to blindly believe everything they tell you, without question.
What to remember when debating them:
Keep demanding facts from them to back up their assertions until they break down and call you any of the aforementioned names. Ask them to name specific freedoms that conservatives have taken from them. They have a tendency to record your conversations and take your words out of context, so be aware of recording equipment when debating them face to face.
Atheist (or non-religious/non-practicing) Democrats are hypocrites. They do everything in the name of humanity, while simultaneously acting as inhuman as possible. They deny basic rights, such as freedom of religion and the right to be born. They think guns are evil and would strip Americans of their right to self-expression . They claim the Bible depicts Christ as a liberal who was opposed to capitalism and violence while completely ignoring the fact that he never spoke in favor of any political ideology and advocated civil disobedience (c.f. Romans 13). They sincerely believe that Christianity had a negative (or zero) impact on America and think we should give up national sovereignty to the United Nations . They label everyone who doesn’t agree with them as “bigoted, ” “racist,” or “__________-phobic”. They cannot understand the difference between tolerance, acceptance, and love.
The problem with this type of Democrat’s views:
They do terrible things in the name of science or humanity. They think that anyone who doesn’t agree with them hates them. They believe that America was never a Christian nation even though the Founding Fathers and the Documents of Freedom are heavily influenced by the Bible. The Founding Fathers wanted a country of religious freedom free from religious persecution, but these Democrats do their best to marginalize and politically persecute religion – especially fundamentalist Christianity.
What to remember when debating them:
There’s a list of quotes that show our Founding Fathers wanted a country influenced by religion. For those Democrats that claim to be Christian, ask them questions like “how would Jesus feel about killing babies?” or “how would Jesus feel about someone failing to protect their family?” For those that are non-religious, ask “if you REALLY think America isn’t the best country in the world, why don’t you live somewhere else?” or “If other countries are doing it better, why do they have the same problems we do – or worse?” Of course, these questions should yield a response that thoroughly proves that they are hypocrites, and continuing to argue with them would be a waste of time.
Occupy Democrats are a dumbed-down combination of the previous two groups of Democrats. They think Joe Biden is intelligent and it’s the media filter’s fault that he looks so stupid. They think Clinton was fiscally responsible even though he borrowed money to balance the budget. They watch CNN religiously, and think main-stream talking heads are credible. They don’t understand why people think they’re racist when they claim only whites are racist. They support the Affordable Health Care Act and higher taxes for the wealthy, even though government waste and inefficiency are at record levels. They fail to see how corporate tax breaks creates jobs.
The problem with this type of Democrat’s views:
They parrot Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, and Piers Morgan talking points. When you discredit one thing they say, they immediately move on to the next subject. Anyone who doesn’t agree with them is ignorant. They fail to see that their system of government mimics socialism. They think government can provide the answers to all of societal ills; they want no personal responsibility.
What to remember when debating them:
They have no idea what they’re talking about. Ask them to prove what they are saying. If you ask them a question and they respond with another question, refuse to answer their question until they answer yours. Don’t back down. Remind them that conservative fiscal policies were responsible for the economic booms of the past. If debating them in public, be careful because they are known to surreptitiously record conversations with intent to twist words, so be aware of any recording devices (including phones) when debating them in places like parks, bars and churches (if they deign to enter one).
Party Democrats think that Obama is an inclusive President despite all evidence to the contrary. They blame all of Obama’s failures on George W Bush. They are sore losers because Bush won the elections of 200 and 2004. They think that Obama won the 2012 election fairly and voter fraud is a myth, despite some districts reporting over 100% voter turnout without a single vote for Romney. They were anti-war when Bush was President; they have backed Obama’s foreign policy to the letter. They willfully ignore scandals such as Benghazi, the Fast and the Furious, the NSA, and the IRS. They will never support a conservative, even if he/she paid off the entire national debt and passed universal healthcare.
The problem with this type of Democrat’s views:
They think Obama, Clinton, Kerry, and Biden are infallibly credible. They fail to see that Obama is one step away from socialism. They think increasing the national debt ceiling is fiscally responsible. They love pointing out flaws in the Republican camp while ignoring the scandal and division in their own tent.
What to remember when debating them:
Don’t waste your time. You could wave Benghazi security footage and NSA internal emails until the cows come home. They are blind to reality and will never be happy unless a Democrat is president. Have them read the Constitution or news accounts of guns saving lives. Show them how fiscal conservatism has helped grow America. This is the best way to get them to go away.
[DISCLAIMER: I am putting this one almost last for a reason. I do NOT think all Democrats are racists. I have Democratic friends who are not racist. This section is only about the small percentage of Democrats who are ACTUALLY racist, because they do exist. I’m not “playing the race card” or “race-baiting,” I’m just describing a small group of racists who also affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party]
Racist Democrats hate whites because they’re white. They think whites owe something to make up for past wrongs. They desire not equality, but an inequality where whites are marginalized. They think that all Christians are racist terrorists. They think anyone who is from the South or owns a gun is a racist. Anyone who disagrees with anyone who is not white is a racist.
The problem with this type of Democrat’s views:
They only think whites are racist. They think racism only counts if it’s racism practiced by the political majority. Whenever they possibly can, they will call you a racist, to hide the fact that they are actually racists.
What to remember when debating them:
They’re racists. Racists are uneducated bigots. You would have a much easier time convincing an apple tree to start growing oranges.
Extremely Uneducated Democrats are Democrats because they think it’s cool. They have a Democratic friend in one of the other groups listed, so they think they know what they’re talking about. They have terrible spelling and grammar but they expect you to believe whatever they say because they are saying it to you.
The problem with this type of Democrat’s views:
It’s hard to tell if they ever made it past the 4th grade. Most of their posts are illegible. They don’t know anything about their position other than what they have heard their friends say. They think Democrats help society because they say that they do, and call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “heartless.” They ignore all historical information that is contradictory to what they say. They are 100 percent blind to facts.
What to remember when debating them:
No amount of facts or logic will ever convince them that their buddies are wrong. You could be a college professor and they will still think your facts aren’t credible. Instead of trying to argue with them, try explaining algebra to your dog. I’m sure it will be much more productive.
Growing up in Pennsylvania, hunting was a way of life.
Our rite of passage: the hunter’s safety course. (100%, thank you very much.)
A special holiday: schools closing on the first day of rifle season.
A test: waking up before dawn to sit in subfreezing temperatures hoping, praying, or – in my sister’s and my case – dancing for the deer to come. We called it the “OK, Deer. You Can Come Now” dance.
Celebration: a photograph of our first deer televised on the local news station. My deer didn’t make it; my turkey, though . . .
Pennsylvania Outdoor Life on WNEP
The same station that brought you the “Apparently” Kid
Reward: meat in the freezer. Horns on the wall (maybe). Head mounts? Ain’t nobody got time for that.
Then I moved – college, you know. I didn’t hunt for 4 years.
I moved again – marriage, you know. I hunted off and on for the past 6 years.
Never got anything.
I hunt with a .300 Savage similar to this one
Until this year.
This year I harvested a doe and a buck – and found a slightly different perspective.
Some readers may find the following descriptions and photos distasteful.
Consider yourself warned.
I stood over my first harvest – the doe – and understood why Native Peoples thanked animals for their sacrifice. This doe had been alive moments before; I could feel the heat coming off her. I found myself praying she didn’t suffer. I never thought these thoughts when I was younger.
I had the meat processed into burger – 22 pounds, to be exact.
Enough to fill the freezer.
I was invited to go out again on the last day of the season – processing (if any) would be taken care of.
With two minutes remaining a buck walked out – literally under my stand. I couldn’t take a shot without shooting through the floor, so I waited. Seconds passed; I started to think: Should I take a shot?
I’ve never harvested a buck before; but as I’ve always said, you can’t eat antlers.
I had plenty of burger, but didn’t have any roasts.Would it be worth it?
It was getting late. What if I only wounded it and then couldn’t find it?
Then he started to run and I had to make a choice.
I took the shot – and missed.
He turned. I had time to make another shot.
I took it – he went down.
Then came the processing.
My uncle and I processed the whole thing.
It was gross; it was disgusting.
It was necessary.
It looked something like this:
I’m not sure how to say it. I enjoyed the hunt, but it wasn’t fun. I derived no pleasure from killing these animals, although I’m thankful for the meat in my freezer. And my in-law’s freezer. And my uncle’s freezer.
I could never hunt for sport.
Contrary to PETA’s website, most hunters don’t hunt for “recreation.” It’s true: many don’t rely on hunting to survive, but those lucky enough to harvest an animal won’t have to buy that at the grocery. Case in point: this year “cost” me $146. I only had to pay for my license and processing of the first deer, and those monies were given as gifts. This means I paid about $2.43 per pound of meat; try buying burger or roast from the deli for that price. I should have no need to buy beef for the next year.
Neither is hunting a necessity. I won’t starve because I didn’t get a deer.
But, hunting makes things easier; my bank account can stretch a bit further.
Mr Peabody let me borrow has absolutely no idea that I have the Wayback Machine, so we have to be quick. Pay close attention – there’s going to be a quiz later.
[INSERT FAVORITE TIME MACHINE NOISE HERE]
[The most appropriate response]
We found a Witch! May we burn her?
Look around; can you tell where we are?
That’s right! It’s the Middle Ages.
And what do we have here?
Someone’s been accused of a crime!
No, there’s no need of a jury; these fine people have something better: judicium Dei via trial by ordeal.
What’s that? You haven’t heard of trial by ordeal? Well, you’re in luck! Here’s a quick rundown:
People in the Bad Old Days widely believed God would protect an innocent person from harm, even if that meant suspending the laws of nature. That’s right; God would personally intervene with a miracle to help “prove” someone’s guilt or innocence! No need for evidence, witnesses, or anything of that kind; simply subject the accused to the ordeal du jour and let God do the rest.
Go ahead; pick your poison:
Trial by Combat
You and your accused fight it out. Last man standing wins is right.
May the Odds be Ever in Your Favor
Trial by Fire
Walk a given distance over red-hot ploughshares or while holding a red-hot iron. Wait three days and have a priest examine the affected area. If there’s no sign of injury: congratulations! You’re innocent and free to go. If the area is blistered, festering, or otherwise injured: prepare to die.
A variation of this trial requires you to remove a stone from boiling water or other substance (like oil or lead).
Trial by hot water is pretty much the same as the variation of ordeal by fire [see above].
Trial by cold water is found in the world’s oldest law codes (Code of Ur-Nammu and Code of Hammurabi) and appears reserved for those accused of sorcery/witchcraft. If you find yourself in this unfortunate position, expect to be submerged in the local stream/lake/river and declared innocent if you sink and guilty if they float. Apparently blessed water can’t receive sinners or something like that. Let’s just hope they fish you out in time (assuming you’re innocent). Either way, looks like you lose.
The witch-hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries relied on this method.
Trial by Cross
It’s essentially a staring contest where you risk your life. You and your accuser stand on either side of a cross and stretch out your arms. First one to lower his arms loses. I hope you’ve been doing your calisthenics!
Trial by Ingestion / Trial by Sacrament / Ordeal of the Eucharist / Trial by Poison
In this (somewhat tasty) ordeal, you’re given blessed dry bread and cheese. If you choke, you’re guilty. A variation of this requires you to take the Eucharist after solemnly swearing you’re up to no good declaring innocence. If you’re guilty, you’ll die within one year. So lock your door and become a hermit and you should be just fine.
I wonder if it works on those accused of gluttony?
Have you been paying attention? Good! It’s time for our quiz. Fair warning, though: it has absolutely nothing to do with anything on this page. Still think you’re ready? Then proceed to the next page!
Running In My Head 