Think before you act

Pick-Up Sticks the game

Life has gotten very, very complicated. And obviously everyone thinks it is very, very simple. Just change it.

Far easier said than done. We had an open range law in New Mexico at one time. And some legislature decided we were too populated for that and so they amended the law. We now only have open ranges on Bureau of Land Management holdings, Indian Land, and forest service property. Good luck with figuring out which of those you are on because they are not fenced necessarily. But to make matters worse when the well meaning lawmakers decided to change the law they forgot one of the little parts of the law about it being the landowners responsibility to fence out the cattle. Not the cattle owner's responsibility to fence them in.

Several following court cases that made it to state supreme court decided that fencing the cattle out only applied to immediate neighbors. So if the cattle got out of the owner's property and wandered merrily down the county or state or forest road to a more distant neighbor's roses then they were in violation of the closed range law and the owner of the roses was entitled to damages and could hold the cattle hostage and charge a grazing fee. Which makes that neighbor more equal than the immediate neighbor who cannot even get the owner of the offending cattle to fix the damaged fence.

All of this is just a small example of how complex our laws get. Rather like the game of pick up sticks I posted at the top of this page. When I played the game the sticks were not striped. You could see where the solid blue one ran under the solid yellow and over the top of the solid orange. Goal of the game is to remove a stick at a time. I was surprised they still made them. And even more surprised they had striped them.

But it is a perfect example of how complex our laws and issues have become. And changing one little thing can upset the whole pile. Yes, I am usually liberal. No, I do not want my right to defend myself from what I see as a threat taken away. Yes, I do not support assault weapons. No, I refuse to have my right to carry a gun infringed upon. Yes, I am for wild horses. No, I do not think they have the right to graze areas in a severe drought and ruin it for grazing forever (note wild horses are transplants from Spain). Yes, I am for re-introduction of wolves. No, I do not believe they should be restored to historic levels because there is no longer historic herds of their natural prey about. Yes, I think it is wrong a 17 year old died. No, I do not think he was innocent either. Yes, I am for a path to citizenship. No, I do not think we should make that path available for felons (and those that entered illegally are guilty of felonies).

Oh, and on the messed up closed range law? I think the owner of said maverick cow is libel for any and all damages even the immediate neighbor and he should be required to fence his livestock in. Now that in the wild west (if the wolf statement didn't) should get me fearing for my life. So think, as you protest the verdict that if you changed the laws so there was one Zimmerman was guilty of, what freedoms you now enjoy would you be giving up?

Play by the House Rules

Mother thought I was too intelligent to be a woman. Translate that to "ever be married." Or as would sometimes add "to be happy."

At an extremely early age I saw that there were always at least two sides to every story and that is if there were only too people involved.

Maybe it was my very active and creative imagination but I immediately got that my reality was not necessarily your reality. College only made matters worse; specifically philosophy and debate. I understood Plato and Jean Paul Sartre and Kierkegaard. Dad thought I should have trained as a lawyer but it just seemed too black and white. But I worked as a court clerk for a while and came to understand the law.

But there is something wonderful about the logic of the law. But I do believe entirely too many people fail to understand it especially when it go against what they want. It does not matter who is right or wrong but who broke the law and can that be proved. And was their a clear and precise law to be broken. That can get rather muddled.

My father played poker and taught us kids the game. According to Hoyle and table rules were everyday phrases in my home. I was the kid at the neighbor's house that when the Monopoly game was pulled out I asked by what rules we were playing. If there are two people cheating in a three handed card game who is wrong if the non-cheater loses all his money. The one not cheating because he was too stupid to get up and leave.

I am one of those strange people that can see the argument from every side and defend it. Not like it. That is entirely something different. But if I take a side it is usually based on fairness. No one promised me fairness but does not prevent me from arguing for it. And fairness is not always equal or unchangeable. It can in fact be quite variable depending upon table rules if you will.

We are great at setting out table rules whether it is Hoyle for games or Roberts Rule of Order for meetings or the Constitution of the United States and the Supremes. We are a civilized country if we play by the rules as written down. Mob violence is not by the rules. Nor is it fair to try a person in the media either before or after the trial because it didn't go as you wanted it.

We have become a nation of whiners. Not a nation of laws. If our side loses we want the rules changed.

I think the Table Rules were followed in the Martin/Zimmerman case. I think the jury did a wonderful job even though they were picked for the belief that as mothers they would be biased. Now let's see who are whiners and who truly believe in the rule of law.

Remember Justice is blind. And so it does not always go the way us biased and illogical people want it to go.

I have made up my mind

I have no interest in the truth. I have made up my mind, is a dogma that fits an alarming number of my former friends. I say former because I have no interest in closed minds. It is an open and shut case with me.

I love diversity. And since being forced into speech class in college love debate. Too bad I was not born a boy in the time of Plato because I would have thrived on discussions of the noise a tree makes if it falls in the forest.

And I find nothing sexier than intelligence. My idea of an ideal date? A museum or series of Ted Talks in Oxford. Two of my biggest turn off's? Rush Limbaugh and Nancy Grace. Both are too darn sure they are right. And with every major news story it seems the lines are drawn from day one. Not all the facts are available and even if they were they have not been read because nobody wants to be bothered by the facts. Their minds are already made up. Picking an impartial jury must be next to impossible these days.

Never mind finding honest and open investigators. Let alone impartial reporters and media. Can you imagine what will happen if Zimmerman is found not guilty? Rioting in the streets no doubt. But the evidence on either side is so inconclusive. And  imagine what would have happened if O.J. Simpson had been found guilty even when the evidence said he was. There seems to be this collective unconsciousness which says THIS IS THE WAY I WANT IT and so it shall be. Certainly do not mess their minds up with any doubt or evidence or facts or, heaven forbid, truth.

All that said I think the title of this blog is wrong because there is no mindful thinking in this collective unconsciousness these days. They have not made up their minds because they have no minds. The title should be I HAVE MADE IT UP. And so shall it be.