There's no place like home

This is the wrap-up from the questions brought up here, here, here, and here (among other places).
The popular conviction that I am wrong about the issue brings one question to my mind:
Do you have any rights-- any at all-- once you set foot off your own real-estate? Yes or no.

Do you only have rights when on your own real estate? What if you don't own any real estate? Do you then have no rights? That seems to be the implication.

If you do have portable rights which travel with you, what are they?

And, if so, how do you keep these rights while you "lose" others? What makes the ones you keep "special" and permanent while the others are disposable?

Is there really any such thing as an "inalienable right", or do rights only exist when you are on your own property? If that's really the case, then it is what it is, but we should stop pretending rights actually exist-- which raises other related questions.

Remember-- the difference between a right and a privilege is that you need permission to exercise a privilege; rights are yours to exercise without anyone's permission.

So, again, do you have any rights beyond your property lines-- beyond the physical boundaries of the real estate you own?

Might you only have the right to not be murdered while traveling, but no other rights? Or do you even have that right? Do you only exist at the whim of others when not on your own property?

Because, frankly, what is being promoted by all those who think I'm wrong here feels exactly like the Mad Max world anti-libertarians always claim will result from libertarian ideas-- where you are at the mercy of warlords who claim the territory and you have no "rights" unless they allow you to. Could they have been correct all along, after all?

How would this not justify every statist anti-liberty policy, rule, or "law" on the planet as long as the majority believes governments own the entire country? And since you never actually "own" real-estate, but are forced to pay a yearly ransom ("property tax") to keep government from taking it from you, how could you even have rights at home? You obviously don't actually own it. You already know government doesn't believe you have rights on your own property-- thus door-bashing 3 A.M. enforcement of anti-gun "laws" and anti-drug "laws" which they believe apply to you in your own home.

The only reason this comes up seems to be that people, even libertarians, are uncomfortable treating the right to own and to carry weapons as a right, They want to leave wiggle-room to turn it into a privilege so as not to scare or offend people, and in order to do so, they have to go into the mental landscape outlined above. Even though they don't seem to realize where they are going.

Change my mind by addressing the points above.

And we've finally come to the end (as far as I'm concerned) of this particular path. On to other things I hope we can agree on.

P.S.-- I really do appreciate the discussion we've been having around this. Even if almost everyone disagrees with me.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

A rickety pedestal

How did some property rights-- specifically, real estate rights-- end up on a pedestal; elevated above all other rights, including other property rights? They are being treated by some as superior to the right of self-ownership. Greater than the right to life. More fundamental than the right to control your own body, from which all other property rights-- including property rights over real estate-- arise.

Property rights with regard to real estate are a piece of the puzzle; not the whole picture. They are essential but not sufficient. You don't get to violate every other right in every other person by yelling "property rights!" Yes, I believe in property (real estate) rights, but not to the detriment of all other human rights. I don't believe they are superior to all other rights, or even that they trump other property rights.

I can't square the claim that it's not OK to shoot a kid who's just cutting through my yard with the claim that it is fine to violate people in other ways just because they are on my land, even if I coerced them into agreeing to "suspend" their rights as a condition of entry. It's only a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. If one is OK, then so would the other be-- if we are being consistent.

If I invite you onto my property, I don't demand you surrender or suspend any of your rights, including your property rights, and that would never be a condition of my invitation. It's unthinkable! I assume liberty. I don't pretend I have the right to attack or rob you just because you are visiting. Neither do you have the right to attack or rob me while on my land, but that should be obvious. As long as you don't do those things there will be no issue.

I expect the same consideration from others.
__

OK, one more day of this topic and it's done.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

You don't have the right to violate others

You have the right to own and carry a weapon, which only means no one has the right to forbid you from doing so. If they did have this right, then your right wouldn't be a right, but a privilege.

You don't have the right to threaten or shoot innocent people with your weapon while claiming "gun rights". Completely separate issues.

You have the right to own and control property-- real estate-- which means no one has a right to forbid it. If they had the right to forbid it, this would mean you only have the privilege to own and control property rather than the right.

You have no right to violate people's rights just because they are on your real estate by claiming "property rights". Completely separate issues.

Your rights never include violating the equal and identical rights of others. I don't have the right to violate your rights on my property, so you don't have that right, either. That right can't exist, by the nature of rights. You have the responsibility to not violate other people's rights while exercising your rights.

So, you don't have the right to shoot innocent people due to your right to own and carry weapons just because you wanted to shoot, and you don't have the right to make up rules which would violate other people's natural human rights as a condition of them being on your property.

Some speak of rights "conflicting", but they don't. My property rights end where yours begin, and yours begin-- at the minimum-- at "you". My rights don't overlap yours. There is no conflict.

It's the difference between "You're on my property" and "You are my property".

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

What is this official-ish envelope? UPDATED

Guess who got a jury summons (on October 9th).

Me.

Yeah, I know that even if they don't extort a plea deal, and the case actually goes to trial, I have zero chance of being seated on a jury. Probably not anywhere, but definitely not around here. I've been told some of these government people read my newspaper columns. They will not risk having me on a jury-- any jury. Not if they want the near-guarantee of a conviction that they seek. I would do the right thing, not the political thing.

I'd love the chance to participate, but that bridge has been burned. Honestly, I'm surprised they even left my name in the rotation. The list must be "untouched by human hands" and unseen by human eyes.

The last time I got one of these I was picked in the initial selection, but kicked out of the pool in the first round of jury stacking. That was over 20 years ago and in another state.

If you haven't been as visible as I have, you may still have a chance to monkeywrench the plans of the US police state through jury nullification when appropriate. Please exercise it when you get the opportunity.


UPDATE: Trial canceled-- settled before it went to court.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

skule vs Education

For a sizeable percentage of people, school doesn't "work". Not if you expect it to result in education, anyway.

I've mentioned before that many of my relatives work at government schools. One has recently retired, but has shifted into being a "substitute teacher". His recent experiences are enlightening.

This past week he was substituting in a class of 8th graders-- I don't know how many kids are in the class, but average class size around here seems to be around 25 inmates. For the past 2 weeks they have been studying some particular math concept. Friday they were being tested on the concepts they had been exposed to. The test consisted of 5 different tables, each with 3 or 4 math problems. The kids were to go from table to table doing the problems.

Out of the entire class, only 3 even bothered to participate. The rest ignored the assignment (and the "teacher") and sat and talked. The 3 who took the test all made 0%.

Now, maybe this isn't typical. But even if it isn't it seems obvious that to confuse schooling for education puts you on the wrong track.

Probably, the more important (to the criminals who control the schools, anyway) task of training people to think in terms of "authority"-- even when the "authority" is defied-- is taking root. I see that as harmful, and as yet another strike against kinderprison. "Authority" junkies would disagree.

And, I guess it's also welfare daycare. To keep the little angels caged, and out of trouble to some extent.

But "education"?
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

"Give me liberty or give me death!" Wait, what?

"Give me liberty or give me death!" is a stirring sentiment, but it's wrong.

No one can "give" liberty to another. They can respect it or violate it, but it's up to you to live it for yourself.

And if someone doesn't respect your liberty, but chooses to violate it, why give them the option of killing you as an easy out? How is that good for you?

My cry would be: Respect my liberty or face the consequences.

_______________

Reminder: I know everyone is tired of hearing it, but I'm still in trouble and could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Hard to believe in 'accusation market'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 26, 2018)

I don't want to be cynical, but the emergence of a market in politically convenient accusations of sexual misconduct, made at just the right moment, is making me cynical.

It's as though people collect and save these accusations in hopes that someday the person they are prepared to accuse will seek a political position, when the accusation can be whipped out, shined up, and presented as a tactic to derail the ambition. If the accuser and accused support different wings of the political vulture, anyway.

I assume anyone inclined to seek political power is probably more likely than the average person to have bad behavior skeletons in their closet, but it all seems too predictable, too convenient, and too politically one-sided as well.

This "accusation market" makes me hesitant to believe any such accusations, regardless of who makes them against whom. And that's a shame. I know there are predatory creeps out there. I believe they should be exposed. But the timing of the accusations-- often decades old-- makes me suspicious.

It also makes me suspect many of these accusations are likely fictitious, created and released to prevent the other political side from getting more power. The passage of so many years makes false memories a near certainty, even if honesty is the goal. And when the game is politics, honesty is never the goal.

Before you accuse me of picking a side, let me remind you where I stand: I don't want any political side to have any power. I would be fine with it if everyone who seeks a political position or office were found unfit for the job. I don't believe anyone is suited to wield political power over others; least of all those who want this power.

It doesn't matter if I don't like most of the people who are targets of these politically convenient accusations. I also don't care much for accusers who stayed quiet and, if their accusations are true, allowed the predators they knew of to continue to victimize others for years or even decades.

Once upon a time, I thought "where there's smoke, there's fire"; when someone was accused of something of this nature. I assumed it was probably at least partly true. I'm less sure today. Today it just looks like the newest way to play politics and force your way on others. Is this where they really want to go from here? How is any of this a good thing for actual victims?

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

"Guilty" of possession?

Mere possession of anything can't be a krime. There must be possession plus... something. What "something"? To be a krime there has to be possession plus archation--possession plus an act which violates someone, and mere possession doesn't. It can't.

Possession is passive. Believing this violates someone is basically the same as believing offending someone violates them-- it's like believing in "microaggressions". No one has a right to not be offended, and no one has the right to prohibit mere possession of something.

This was the realization which long ago ended my support of the War on Drugs; which made me realize it was really the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

But then I thought and considered this from every angle for a decade or two and finally came to realize it didn't end there. Mere possession of anything doesn't violate anyone, ever. I keep trying to think of a way to passively archate-- violate someone in some real way without acting-- and I haven't yet.

For possession of anything anywhere to be archation you have to have possession plus. Plus a credible threat to archate. Plus aggression. Plus theft. Plus radiation or some other active dispersal of something physically harmful onto another person or their private property. Plus something. Because mere possession isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

Just one example, concerning a hypothetical freedom of religion scenario:
You can possess any religious beliefs you want. You can possess those beliefs wherever you go, even when on the private property of someone with different religious beliefs. This is passive. No one can possibly be violated by your religion-- no matter what it is-- until you put your beliefs into action by actually doing something; by no longer passively possessing those beliefs, but by acting them out. By whipping them out and waving them around, as it were. You can be banned from performing rituals on someone else's property, but they can't reasonably (or ethically) ban you from passively possessing religious beliefs they oppose while on their property. It's just none of their business.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Lies of omission

There is a disturbing trend in government schools and other youth indoctrination institutions to teach kids how to survive an unwelcome encounter with a cop. (And notice that comments are disabled on the video example-- truth offends these monsters. And the number of downvotes is also hidden from view.)

This "information" is, unfortunately, helpful. But it stops short.

You don't teach kids how to survive encounters with fast food counterpersons. Or even with other government employees like theft-funded librarians. Only cops.

Teaching kids how to survive encounters with cops is incomplete without the information that the cops are bad guys committing acts of enforcement-- krimes.

I know that since government indoctrination camps, kinderprisons, are on the same team as the badged vermin that's not going to happen. But by excluding that bit of reality, kids are being lied to. They are being trained that if they don't survive a roadside molestation it's their own fault for making the bad guy feel unsafe. The problem is giving the power of life and death to unaccountable paid cowards, not how compliant and nonthreatening you make yourself appear to those parasites. Never a hint that the bad guy is a bad guy.

Lies of omission are still lies.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

A smackdown would amuse me

This is the one and only reason I hope the left-statists lose hard on election day:

The arrogance, smugness, and entitlement they demonstrate are illustrated so well by this Wall Street Journal photo from October 20, 2016. I didn't see it until a few months after publication-- it was in a stack of fireplace fodder a neighbor gave me. But I actually laughed out loud when I saw it the first time. And political stuff never has that effect on me.

Now, I don't like right-statists at all. They are enemies of liberty. All statists are: right, left, independent, or whatever. But I don't think the left-statists have quite learned their lesson yet. So, under those conditions, I would still rather the left-statists not "win".

Sure, I would love it if no one showed up to v*te for any of these clowns. Or, if only anti-state candidates ran.

I probably still wouldn't v*te, but it would be an interesting and encouraging development.

But that's not going to happen this year. After election day there will either be a glut of left-statists or right-statists, contributing to the overall glut of statists seeking the opportunity to molest you and me.

I don't care about politicians. I don't want any of them to win and rule. But I still want the left-statists knocked down at least one more time. Just because they are so elitist, arrogant, and think they are so smart.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Just leave your leg in the car

• Your artificial hip.
• A thought in your head.
• A letter in your pocket.
• A phone on your belt.
• A pacemaker in your chest.
• Your hearing aid.
• Your tattoos.
• A gun in your pants.
• Your cane or walker.
• Glasses on your face or contact lenses on your cornea.
• Dye on your hair.
• Fillings in your teeth.

None of those things are any of my business, and if I invite you onto my property I won't make the ridiculous demand that you leave any of them behind.

Even if I imagine I have the "right" to do so, doing so would still make me a self-centered, property rights violating jerk.

I know there are environmental conditions, such as artificially strong magnetic fields and radio signals, which could make it necessary to either leave certain things behind, or which make it dangerous for people with those things to be in certain places. Like how neckties aren't safe to wear around certain spinning equipment. That's not what we're talking about here.

My rights end where yours begin, and yours begin-- at the very minimum-- at the surface of your clothing/possessions or skin. My rights can't penetrate beyond that level; inside your personal space. That's the absolutely essential kernel from which all property rights grow.

If I'm not willing to respect all your rights I am not obligated to allow you on my property, but if I do allow or invite you onto my property, I am obligated to respect your rights. All of them. If I demand you strip naked and submit yourself to being raped as a condition of coming onto my property, that would make me a rights-violating jerk. Some might imagine I would be within my rights to set that condition, but I don't. To me, that's utterly ridiculous.

You may have a different opinion. If so, fine. I don't demand you surgically excise your differing opinion and leave it behind as a condition of coming onto my property. Because I don't imagine that anything you aren't using to actually initiate force or to damage my property or take it from me is violating my property rights in any way.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some financial help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Twinsies!

I see the left-statists whining that the "NPC" thing is "alt-right", but it works equally well both ways. Don't you think so?

It's hard to "dehumanize" someone who has dehumanized themselves. And nothing is more dehumanizing than collectivism. Of any variety.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Well, maybe a slight exaggeration

I need to be a better person; more ethical. The more ethical I am, the more libertarian I will be. The more libertarian I am, the more anarchist I become. It's a process.

My newspaper editor says, with obvious hyperbole, "...Kent McManigal... is the standard by which all libertarians are measured. McManigal has zero use for government. He thinks we can resolve all issues one on one, that individual freedom trumps majority rules every time."

It's in the newspaper; it must be true! 😉

In spite of his confidence in me, I know I'm not there yet (and never will be). But I'll keep working at it. That's a promise I make daily to myself.
_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Actions matter more than identity

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 19, 2018)

Instead of worrying about who someone is, it seems smarter to focus on what they do. Anything other than their actions is none of your business and can't harm you, and not many of their actions are your business, either.

The color of someone's skin isn't my concern, nor is the language they speak. Who you love is between you and those you love, and your religious beliefs don't involve me.

I'm not worried about where someone was born or what government permission slips they may lack.

What people do is all that can matter.

I would hope people don't harbor beliefs which they use to justify violence, including the violence of laws, against those who aren't harming anyone else. Yet, unless they take action, not even those twisted beliefs can hurt anyone.

If you aren't creating a victim through your actions-- and being offended isn't being victimized-- those who oppose you are wrong.

What you wear, what you carry, what you ingest, what you do in your own home-- none of those things could possibly be any of my business unless it harms others or makes a credible threat to do so.

If you aren't complying with zoning laws, property codes, licensing schemes, or other illegitimate laws, I'm on your side.

Why would I care if you break laws as long as there is no individual victim; not an imaginary victim like "society" or the state? And, although I don't want you to harm yourself and would do what I can to help, no one has the right to violently intervene to stop you.

Those who worry about who someone is rather than what they do often complain about government until they can use it against someone they don't like, especially if they notice their target ignoring an illegitimate law. Suddenly, they are in favor of government violence. If they weren't against the person, they wouldn't care about the law. Hypocrisy is ugly.

But what if you fervently believe you need to meddle in someone else's life? Do I care why you do the wrong thing? No. I only care that you act to violate someone's life, liberty, or property. Your excuses don't matter.

Whoever you are is fine with me. Anything you do is OK with me as long as you aren't harming someone, even if I don't understand it. It's a waste of time to fret over shallow things which can't possibly matter. You be you; that's good enough.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Assume government?

When someone asks what government ("The State") "thinks" on some issue-- what the "law" says or what the general statist thinking [sic] is-- my first thought is always along the lines of "Who gives a ...?"

And I'm not only talking about whether or not something is "illegal".

So many people assume government. I assume liberty.

They can't imagine liberty, so they obsess over this or that justification for governing others. They feel the need to know what George Washington said about some subject before they can form an opinion about it. They worry over what the Constitution says. They can't consider anything outside the box of what some long-dead statist molester believed.

They act as though they believe government is to be considered first. Anything else comes later, if there's still room. They pretend discussing government is the adult thing to do. They are misguided.

_______________

Reminder: I could really use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

Fauxcahontas, Grey Owl, and Dull 'Hawk

So, professional archator Elizabeth Warren may have a trace of Native DNA-- assuming the expert who interpreted the results of her DNA test isn't politically motivated to confirm (however trivially) her claims. A trace doesn't make her Native.

If it was an honest mistake on her part, that's easy to understand.

If it was an intentional lie, it was worse than that of Grey Owl. Much worse.

She used the claim, whether an honest mistake or a lie, as some sort of entitlement to govern people other than herself. That's wrong on every level.

My mountainman name, Dull 'Hawk, has been mistaken for an "indian name", but I've never claimed it is. It's just the mountainman style. I have a respect for many Native things, while not idealizing them in any way.

I had been told my whole life that I had Native ancestry. From both sides. My dad's adoption paperwork even said so. But a couple of years ago, both my parents had DNA analysis done, and there's not a trace from either of them. (So much for government record inerrancy.)

I was surprised, but it really made no difference.

I am curious whether, had our DNA samples been somehow mixed up, the expert who examined and interpreted Ms. Warren's DNA would have found evidence of Native ancestry in a sample of my DNA which he thought was hers.

When I believed I had Native ancestry I didn't use that belief as an excuse to bully, boss, or otherwise govern anyone. I didn't use that belief for gain. I had Native friends who opened their arms to me, asking unprompted if I had Native blood, and I said I thought I had a little, but that wasn't the basis of our friendship. Two of them have said I have a "Native Spirit". Not that I believe in such things, but I accept the compliment in the spirit in which it was offered.

Yes, I like wearing buckskin and bone (or dentalium) chokers, but I've never claimed it was for any reason but that I liked them and it was a mountainman style. Same with my long hair. And, if asked now whether I have any Native blood, I would say "no". But I'm still me, and since I never tried to use it to my advantage or as an excuse to get anything from anyone, my conscience is clear. I was mistaken; now I know better. No harm done.

I wonder how Ms. Warren's conscience feels, assuming a professional archator has one which functions.
_______________

Reminder: I could very much use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
"I do the job... I get paid."

"Proportionality"

--This post is necessitated by this and this. It expresses my feelings, not rights nor right and wrong. Just human feelings and emotions. I am probably wrong for how I feel, but it doesn't change how I feel.--

I have never been a fan of "proportionality", and have mentioned this many times over the years in this blog.

It is easy for critics to cry "proportionality" after the fact, when they weren't there for the violation and weren't the victim. It is also a wonderful hiding place for violators.

If someone shoots you and you shoot back, but after the dust has settled it turns out his bullet "only" grazed your arm while yours ventilated his cranium, that wasn't proportional. Shame on you for not aiming to graze. Right?

Or, he could shoot at you and if he has time before you shoot back, he could claim he didn't kill you so you had better make sure to only do proportional damage to his body.

Obviously, a kid stealing candy from a store isn't as bad as an adult stealing your car or backing a trailer up to your door and cleaning out your house. Yet, at heart, the acts are the same; it's just a matter of degree. The kid needs to understand the seriousness of what he did so he might decide to never do it again. If you pat him on the head and say "It's OK" you are not doing him any favors. Each situation will be different, including whether he actually understands that he stole the candy. But there needs to be some awareness instilled in the kid.

Because, yes, if someone is in the process of stealing your car I do think shooting him is perfectly proportional, whether anyone agrees or not. I don't want the child thief to grow up and become an adolescent or adult thief, because then I believe it would be a great service for someone to kill him. I would like to avoid that outcome.

To me, once someone has demonstrated a total lack of concern for your life (including taking your property, which you traded your life for) they have shown that you shouldn't concern yourself too much with their well-being. Your mileage may vary.
_______________

Reminder: I could sure use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Killing thieves

Is theft worth a death penalty?

I bring this up because it's related to my newspaper column from yesterday.

The only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the scene of the attack by the victim or a rescuer. Anything later-- including anything done by government employees-- is revenge. And murder.

Back in the old days, horse theft was a capital offense. However, unless they shot the guy in the act, it was murder (ethically, if not "legally"). For example, if they "strung him up" later.

The reason horse theft was treated so seriously was that horses were essential. Horses were a matter of life and death. You lose your horse and you may die because of it. Today cars take the place of horses for most Americans.

I think you are completely within your rights to shoot a car thief to stop your car from being stolen, even if "the law" disagrees. Probably not right to chase down a guy you know to be a car thief and hang him.

If it's a kid stealing candy from a store, then I wouldn't be in favor of shooting him. Same with a starving man in the wilderness stealing food from a cabin-- as long as he doesn't do unnecessary damage and tries to pay restitution.

But then, I'll never grieve a dead thief no matter what he steals, and not even if I consider his death to have been murder. I can separate my feelings from what I think is right.

I've said it before and I'll say it again-- I don't really believe in proportionality very strongly. I'll say more about that in tomorrow's post.

But maybe I'm just overly emotional about thieves at the moment.

Just a few weeks ago my mom's last remaining uncle-- the last of that generation of the family, at 94 years old-- had everything stolen from his house. Everything. Inside and outside. He has been living with his daughter since his wife died and only going out to his house once a week or so to check on things. Someone knew and used the opportunity to clean him out. Would I have shot the thief had I caught him in the act?

Fortunately for my mom's uncle, upon finding out about the theft, his granddaughter decided to cruise through a trashy part of town along the main road from his house. Over a fence as she drove along, she recognized her grandfather's pickup. Looking over the fence, she also saw his lawnmower and other stuff. She called the cops and they all went inside and found all his possessions (along with a lot of other people's stuff, too). They didn't find anyone there, but they took all the surveillance cameras (he had many of them watching every bit of his property) and got video of the thief bringing the stolen items to the house (not the sharpest guy, apparently). The cops know who the guy is, and said he's on probation. Do you think I would be sad if someone killed this guy, whether or not it was defense? As long as he lives, he's going to be a thief. He needs to be dead.

But, would it be right to kill him? Not unless he's caught in the act, and some would say, not for "only stealing". I suppose there's room for debate.
_______________

Reminder: I could sure use some help.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Reaching out-- with updates

Lots of recent medical bills mean I'm severely short of money*.

I realize no one wants to hear that.

If you can't help, or don't care, or don't want to help, etc. then I'm not talking to you. Go in peace.

If you want to help and can help, then I would sure appreciate it.

However, I would rather not be the helped by the same people who are the ones who always rise to the occasion. I would prefer they sit this one out, even if it means no one helps this time.

Anyway, I hesitate to even mention how much I need, but it's around $500. Even more would be better, but anything would help some. And, at this time, Paypal is probably more helpful than anything else. Here's my link: PayPal.Me/Dullhawk

Thank you.

*Update: And I just lost $50 per month from another source, unrelated to the blog. This is getting disastrous. This will be an ongoing problem until that money is replaced from another source. Please subscribe.

*Update again: I just found out I will no longer be paid for the lawn work I do for my parents. There's another decrease in my income. Yay. I guess we can just assume this trend will continue.

Income always seems to decrease, while expenses always seem to increase. How is that even possible?

I sharpen knives locally-- that's the only thing I really feel like I do well. I'm not comfortable shipping knives, so that's why I don't offer that service online.
I sell things on eBay. Not enough to really help, though.
I also do some lawn work. (Which, as noted above, I found out I will no longer be paid for.)
I'm not just sitting around. But things are getting worse and worse, financially. I know I'm not the only one-- almost everyone who has canceled their subscriptions and given a reason has said it was because their financial situation got worse.

-

..

What does "race" have to do with it?

There are a lot of things called "racism" that I don't think qualify. Such as the recognition that some cultures are "better" than others, or that people should be rewarded for their merits and abilities.

But there are some things not necessarily considered racism that sure seem like it to me.

Such as... I don't understand unnecessarily bringing "race" into conversations where it is irrelevant. Like if someone is saying: "This Black guy at work gave me half of his hamburger..." or something like that. Why mention "Black" at all? What does it matter to the story? It almost never does.

Now, if you are trying to help someone identify an individual, I can see the point. "Look for the Black guy wearing the fedora" makes sense. Just like if you had said "look for the guy with the big nose and long red hair". That is a basic description to help you know who you are talking about. It's useful information.

It probably doesn't really matter, it's just something I notice, especially when it comes from people very proud of their post-rascism.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.