Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 7-16, March 2010

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

March, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 16
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 85
Editor, John Dunkle

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.

Prisoners for Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgewick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918

The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight

Here’s the ending of Jim Kopp’s Neo Trades II, Shade Tree Horror Stories:

William loved to work. He loved it so much he loved it for itself. He never scolded anyone, he never called anyone lazy, although he could, because he was the laborers’ straw-boss, and he could. It was always, “If you could be so kind,” or “As soon as would be convenient for you,” and he knew you would jump up and do it because he asked so kindly. William went at 100 miles an hour, sunup to sundown, and with nary a discouraging word, he could make you feel like a slacker just for doing 99 instead. You wanted to catch up with him, which must explain why one bright Caribbean morning William woke up, took a deep breath, looked up at the almost cobalt sky with the magnificent frigate birds floating around in it, looked down at the bay and the over-arching coconuts, and said, we can move this along, and he rolled the cement mixer out onto the scaffold and of course a wee drop of sand and mortar to feed it.
The stone masons were tapping. The masons’ apprentices were lugging. The mixer was thump, thump , thumping. You could feel it in your feet which was why you didn’t feel the feel of the cross-braces giving out with just a little tiny flex, as sway of their own.
They all looked up, and instead of the blue of the sky, they saw the green of the jungle coming at them at a little bit more than 100 miles an hour.
No one was hurt, for all of their rapid one-way ride from the top of the house to the bottom of the jungle, Thanks be to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, a chastened but undaunted William would later say.
When the Shade Tree Horror Story was told to me by the G.C./architect later on, he said, “I turned my back on William for just one hour because I had to run into town. Would you believe it? When I came back he had the mixer up on the scaffold. He rode it all the way to the ground.
All along that wild ride, up until just before it hit, there was William still shoveling away to fill the mixer.

Moral of the story: Boys and girls, hard work won’t kill you. And if you don’t drink, your kids will never starve. But don’t put the mixer on the scaffold. OK?

Next time DV: Chainsaws are much safer than you think. But wait till you find out what’s really scary about saws. You’ll never believe it. (hint: it’s not the blade)

P.S. I learned all this and 10000 things more and I was scarcely 18. See why your wee bairnies need off the couch? Read Cloud of Unknowing yet? How about Noise? (Tomeo,, ...time’s running out)

Continuation of Eric’s chapter 3, “The Debate.”

Most Americans have a stereotypical image of a communist. He's a guy dressed in a drab uniform carrying an AK-47 in Peking or Hanoi. But the Frankfurt School Marxists were not trying to create goose-stepping revolutionaries. First, they wanted hippies. Frankfurt School thinker Herbert Marcuse articulated the free-love doctrine for the counterculture. Author of Eros and Civilization (1955), Marcuse was the guy who coined the phrase "make love, not war." Ultimately the Frankfurt School thinkers wanted the children of the hippies. Because even though they were subjected to an intensive deconstruction process—which is why they called it the counterculture— the hippies still retain elements of the older value system. But their children do not. Take a look at the typical member of the MTV generation: he's amoral and lives only to satisfy his animal desires; he lacks discipline, ambition and purpose; he has no patriotism, honor or dignity; he is missing religion, culture and convictions; he has no loyalty to family, friends and country; his only heroes are Hollywood degenerates and sports stars. He is exactly what Lukács and Gramsci wanted: a person lacking identity, a talking monkey, a blank slate upon which to write the values of socialism. Their work is now paying dividends. In the recent presidential election (2008) 66 percent of those under thirty years old voted for the Marxist candidate, Barack Obama. Where Marx's revolution failed, Lukács and Gramsci's has succeeded.
Meanwhile, socialists in Russia would keep their revolutionary roots and their internationalist ambitions. Political structures were supposed to follow economic conditions, according to Marx’s theory. But most Russians were peasants engaged in agriculture. Their mode of production and exchange was still feudal. Therefore, they had to first go through the capitalist phase of economic development before moving on to socialism, said Marx. Revolution was supposed to start in the most advanced capitalist societies (Germany, France, England), and spread from there. When he realized that revolution would not happen in the West, Marx became opportunistic. He turned his theory on its head. In the preface to the Russian 1882 edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx gave Russia permission to skip the capitalist stage of economic development and move right on to socialism.
Using this interpretation of dialectical materialism, Lenin, the leader of Russia’s Social Democratic Party, developed his own brand of egalitarianism (Marxism-Leninism). Lenin preferred Marx’s name for socialism, calling it communism. The underlying economic conditions are not necessary to achieve socialism in Russia, wrote Lenin in his book What is to be Done? (1912). A well organized group of professional revolutionaries, said Lenin, could act as a “vanguard” for the people. Relying on their unique insights, the revolutionary vanguard could propel the masses to socialism, regardless of the society’s economic stage of development. If a ruthless elite imposed it, socialism could work anywhere. Lenin called this idea democratic centralism. This meant the rule of a small party elite through terror, secrecy, and propaganda. Stalin later refined the idea to mean the rule of one man through a few handpicked lackeys. Improving party discipline through intra-party purges was another Stalinist improvement on democratic centralism. Focusing his attention on peasants and agriculture rather than workers and industry, Mao Tze-Tung later developed his own style of Marxism-Leninism called Maoism. This triumvirate — Lenin, Stalin, Mao — created the version of egalitarianism that would serve as the model for communist regimes in the non-Western world.
During the Second World War Democratic Socialists and Revolutionary Socialists joined together to defeat the Axis powers. Not since the 1890s had socialists worked so well together. Many socialists in the West were confident that the differences with their Soviet comrades could be worked out and the dream of global socialism finally realized. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for one, held out hope that after the war America and the Soviet Union could lay the foundations for a New World Order based upon the general principles of socialism, which were later embodied in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But after the war the dream of socialist cooperation died when Stalin held onto Eastern Europe and pursued an aggressive policy with his Democratic Socialist cousins in the West. A Cold War developed. The war in Korea and the ruthless nature of Soviet and Chinese communism caused a conservative reaction in the West. The old labels of communism and socialism became highly unpopular, as conservatives started to point out the common ideological heritage of the Soviet and Chinese communists and their American Democratic Socialist cousins. Conservatives exposed the sympathies, the collaborations, the outright treasons of figures such as Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, both of whom held key positions in Roosevelt’s administration. Lest they face a full fledged reaction, as happened in Spain in the1930s, egalitarians in America began to camouflage their communist sympathies, and they got rid of the socialist label entirely. Now they are known exclusively as liberal democrats, or progressives.
Since they have already laid the basis of a welfare state in Europe and America, egalitarians now concentrate their focus on cultural issues. This is Frankfurt School-style Marxism. The Marxist idea of class struggle has been expanded to include white vs. black, men vs. women, natives vs. immigrants, straights vs. homosexuals. It’s the same old concept of history as a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, with the mirage of an egalitarian paradise somewhere up ahead. But despite the camouflage, the name change, and the new focus, the contemporary liberal is an ideological relative of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Robespierre and Rousseau. Like them, he believes that basic inequalities cause injustices, and like them, he believes there is a template for the perfect society. Egalitarians only differ on how to get there. Just like children trying to force square blocks into round holes, egalitarians have tried for over 200 years to smash their templates down onto the existing organic societies of the earth. The result has been misery on an unprecedented scale. By attempting to erect a heaven on earth they have created a living hell.
The conservative accepts life, he builds culture on natural human dispositions. America is a Western Christian nation; therefore, the conservative believes in keeping the Christian ethic at the core of his world view. The Conservative believes in the exclusive claims of Western Christian culture identity. At the other end, the egalitarian is committed to building an artificial culture, one based on theories, and not organic identity. This universal culture claims to speak for all “humanity.” The egalitarian views organic cultures as primitive, backward, and intolerant. Because the Western Culture is the most powerful organic culture in existence today, they see it as the ultimate enemy of their utopian fantasies. At this level, the conflict is existential, there can be no compromises: Western conservatives will either preserve their culture, or the egalitarians will succeed in snuffing it out forever. Their global utopia is the mirage of fools. At issue here is whether the West will die at the hands of these fools. (tbc)

Dear John, Sometimes you have to tell a confused old dog, "You're barking up the wrong tree." But for old dogs like you it is worse than that, "You should be barking up the tree you're resting under!" The reason why letters like my last one are confusing to you is that you have been taking shade under trees you should be barking up instead!
Let's look at Laci and Conner's law, for example, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The law provides limited legal protection for children in utero. What do old pro-life dogs say about this law? "Finally some shade to rest under!" The poor old dog is so badly confused he would never ever think of barking up this tree. He'd bark up other trees, but not this one because he thinks this is a pro-life tree as solid as oak. So he rests under its shade instead of barking up it.
At this point you might think I'm being ridiculous, wondering, "Does Cal really think he is going to prove to me that Laci's law is anything but pro-life?" Well, let me poke a little stick up there and show you the big snake hiding up in the tree. Here's the scoop.
In addition to legalizing voluntary abortion, the Court in Roe v. Wade quietly legalized two categories of forced abortion. The Court based the authority to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion on Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization) and Jacobson v. Massachusetts (forced vaccination). By disavowing the applicability of Skinner v. Oklahoma to abortion, the Court created two categories of forced abortion: 1) based on mental incompetence, and 2) based on drug use. Skinner would have prevented abortion based on drug use, because it was handed down to protect people from forced procedures to control reproduction in arbitrary connection with crimes committed.
But faced with the sex and drug craze of the hippie era, and unsure of what might lie on the horizon, even Justice Douglas (who himself had authored Skinner for a unanimous Court) went along with abandoning Skinner for abortion. The reason was that the Court felt it would be impractical to label all the women who got pregnant on sex and drug crazes mentally incompetent and to force them to abort that way. Instead, it would be more practical to abandon Skinner so women could simply be forced to abort based on the crime of drug use itself. Otherwise, the Court feared there might be no way to control drug-related pregnancy epidemics at some point in the future.
Mislabeled pro-life justices, Justices Rehnquist and White dissented from Roe v. Wade not because the children's rights were being denied, but because they felt states should have broader discretion to override both the woman's decision to refuse an abortion and her decision to choose an abortion. In a nutshell, the states' rights view is based on a belief that provincial judgment reaches its perfection at the state level, such that the leaders of our states will know exactly when to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion and when to override her decision to choose an abortion.
In other words, some feel leaving the abortion decision up to women alone is inefficient for two reasons. First, some women who state leaders feel should have abortions (e.g., women on drugs) will refuse abortions and slip through the cracks. Second, without letting the states make women jump through hoops to get abortions, more women will carelessly rely on abortion and this will lend more social momentum to the sorts of sex and drug crazes that result in unplanned pregnancies in the first place. Thus, the states' rights advocates on the Court feel giving states broad permission to override both the decision to refuse and the decision to choose an abortion will be the most efficient way to prune the wild fruit off women's branches and keep it from coming back.
So that's the background. Now let's look at Laci's law. If the Court in Roe had left the abortion decision to the woman's sole determination, then it would have sufficed for Laci's law to make an exception for abortions performed with the consent of the pregnant woman. But Laci's law makes two more exceptions, one for each category of forced abortion authorized by the Court in Roe as a backup plan. Why? Roe reserved forced abortion as a backup plan, but the states' rights advocates want the Court to give the states broader power to override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion as an everyday plan. As the plurality warns in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the states' rights justices would allow the states to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion.
It is no skin off the backs of states' rights advocates if criminals are given added penalties for killing at least potentially wanted children in the womb in connection with certain federal crimes. But if they do not include exceptions for legally performed forced abortions, states will no longer be allowed to override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion, whether on the basis of incompetence or drug use, not even if the Court at a later date overturns Roe in favor of the states' rights!
So Laci's law keeps a snake hidden in its tree. Looking forward to a day when the Court overturns Roe not in favor of the children's rights but rather in favor of the states' rights, so that the states can then override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion, Laci's law provides exceptions for both categories of forced abortion.
In addition to an exception for abortions authorized by the woman, Laci's law provides exceptions for abortions authorized by "a person authorized by law to act on her behalf" (e.g., by a psychiatrist after she is labeled incompetent) and abortions for which the nature of "such consent is implied by law" (e.g., abortions authorized by the state in connection with drug use). In Stump v. Sparkman, the Court ruled that ministerial authority to forcibly control reproduction need only be implied by state law. It does not have to be expressed, just implied. So there you are, old dog, now you see the snake hiding up the tree in Laci's law. And to think you've been resting under it!
References: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), at 153-154 (relying on Jacobson and Buck to reject the argument that the abortion decision should be left to the woman's sole determination), and at 159 (disavowing Skinner, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from … Skinner"); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), at 215 (Justice Douglas joining the Court's reliance on Jacobson and Buck in Roe); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), at 100-101 (Justice Marshall reflecting that the Court in Roe abandoned Skinner and instead "reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell" for abortion); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, at 859 (the plurality warning that the states' rights justices would allow states to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion), at 913, 932 (Justices Stevens and Blackmun, who wrote Roe, respectively reflecting that no Member of the Court, nor the solicitor general, has ever so much as "questioned" whether the children have rights we are bound to respect, but instead the Court has debated to what extent states should be allowed to override the woman's abortion decision), and at 915 (Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joined at 932, disavowing Skinner for abortion); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), at 980 (the states' rights justices banding together under Justice Thomas to clarify that they would allow states to perform even partial-birth procedures, provided only that the states so decide); Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, Public Law 108-212, (18 U.S.C section 1841, part (c)(1) reads, "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.") Sincerely, Cal.

Now wait a minute, Cal. I neither rest under that tree nor bark up it. (Is that a sin of omission?) Readers, don’t miss Cal’s Petition for Habeas Corpus, next issue, for Scott and others.

Paul Ross Evans has just completed The Militant Christian. I will post it here as I am doing with Eric’s Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict:

The Militant Christian
A text by Paul Ross Evans

I. Introduction
II. Theocracy – The True Government for the Militant Christian
III. Theocratic Law and Its Function
IV. Criminal Law
V. Military Law and Rules of Engagement
VI. Moral Law and Assorted Laws of Theocracy
VII. The Ten Commandments – Behavioral Standards and a Sacred Code
VIII. Prayers for Strength
IX Documented Action by the Author of the Text
X. Epilogue

Against a modern sky, our towering Christian culture began to crumble. Slowly, but surely, we’ve let it come to this. We are disarmed, lacking the absolution we have stood tall with during past conflicts, declaring ourselves a cut above the rest. No, now we relinquish the sword and shield of the Lord’s absolute commandments. They have been cheaply traded for empty idealism and pacifistic, flesh-worshiping idolatry.
The time has come for us, as a body, to draw a line in this conflict. We must separate Christian from non-believer. Does that mean we abandon non-believers? Absolutely not. But in order for a Christian to embark upon a journey leading others to Christ, that Christian must be able to see clearly. Today, things are, at best, cloudy and uncertain for the mainstream followers of Christ. Then again, Christ was anything but mainstream.
For those who know the truth, it can be difficult and exhausting to walk through a grey world, where no black and white lies are drawn, and everything remains uncertain. It is my wish that this text will give my brothers and sisters those clear lines, as they have been revealed to me. My hope also is the sheer, plain truth of the text will influence others to follow Christ, and join us as well.
Positively, at one time, people, we were a force to reckoned with. Our callings as the chosen have not died, only our will to stand defiantly in the faces of the enemy as Armies of the God of Israel. When the day comes along when Christians unite world-wide, and align themselves with the truth of the Word, nothing can or will stop us. May God be with us.

Next issue I will begin Paul’s second chapter, “Theocracy.”

For you who’d like to know more about the editor:

So, pray tell, what have you learned that is so self-revealing, Mr. Know-It-All. [I had told the writer that her blog, bullywatch009, is very self-revealing.] What is the problem with my comments? What is it that you know, in your infinite world of wisdom, that is so self-revealing? And, further, what do you imagine you can do with your abundance of knowledge that will further your mission of hatred and misery toward women? The fact remains that you can waste obnoxious amounts of time making inane comments on this blog. You can continue with your hubris, making false claims of religiosity. Everyone outside of your smarmy group of mongrel, pseudo-prolifers knows that you are a sad, old man who tries to be important but is essentially an impotent, ignorant pretense of a Catholic. You are right when you say you are a coward. You desperately want love and attention. You would be wise to seek love and kindness from your family and stop seeking some form of heroism in your pathetic attempts at being so righteous. You are a coward, a poser, a pretender.
Go home. Love your wife, your children, your grandchildren. Show the world what love is about by being a kind and generous man instead of an ogre Hell-bent on damnation. Show your misanthropic pal, Gerry McWilliams, what cura personalis is all about. Gerry is a lesser man than you are. Rise above his hatred and anger.
January 24, 2010 10:26 PM.

Roeder Rooters – Tiller’s “Grateful Dead”

Dave and Dorothy Leach rode with Donna Holman to Wichita, Kansas in our Truthvan. They wanted to be at the courthouse to support to Scott Roeder who is on trial for killing abortionist George Tiller. They were joined by Michael Bray from Ohio, Drew Heiss from Wisconsin, and Gene Frye from Kansas City. Randall Terry and a few of his supporters did interviews outside the courthouse. There is bad blood between Randall Terry and Wichita’s Troy Newman over the Operation Rescue moniker.
Local pro-lifers have been conspicuously absent during these proceedings. The significance of this trial is capturing the world’s attention and Operation Rescue’s sign trucks are no where to be seen. There are plenty of pro-aborts in the gallery tying a “hang man’s noose.”
This is America’s epitaph on of how we lost the culture. We did not lose because the wicked are more powerful than we. We did not lose because they have more money or influence; we did not lose because they have a seducing message; we lost because we did not show up! We lost by default!
Do you ever wonder why there are no Christian suicide bombers taking out abortion clinics? Heck! You can hardly find a pastor preaching an anti-abortion sermon, or a pew of people willing to listen to it! American “pro-life” “Christians” don’t want to hear about kids getting killed. Christianets need sermonets with lots of sugar, comedy skits, dancing zebras, and finger puppets presenting a cheerful but thoughtful message; something that relates to them and theirs.
Is it any wonder why most pro-life Christians view Scott Roeder and his supporters as the radical fringe! They have had no sound teaching from their pulpits!
Many pro-life ministries do not act as if the babies’ lives are important. They bicker with each other over monikers, window dressing, and conscience money.
Scott Roeder is an embarrassment to them. Mr. Roeder acted as if the children Tiller killed were worth defending, a big “NO-NO” in pro-life circles. Pro-lifers cannot come up with a logical argument as to why the double standard? Why is it OK to use force, even deadly force, to protect a classroom of kindergarten children, but it is forbidden to use force to protect pre-born children slated for abortion? Are pre-born children worth less than post-born children? If so, we have tacitly admitted that a mother DOES have a right to kill her unborn child! Her unborn child is somehow sub-human and NOT entitled to an inalienable Right of Life.
The past 3 days Truthvan has been prominently parked at the entrance of the Sedgwick County Courthouse. The despised children pictured on the van are junior prosecutors; their tortured bodies are an indictment to the authorities sanctioning their demise. Tiller should have been judiciously hung like “Chemical Ali.” George Tiller might be alive today if these authorities did not protect his baby-killing operation.
The state should wrap up its case today. Tomorrow former Attorney General Phil Kline will testify for the Defense regarding illegal abortions George Tiller performed.

Dan Holman, as usual, hits the nail on the head. My new sign says, “Why do Christians and Jews, but not Muslims, kill their children?” My wife asks if I have an answer to that question. Yes, I say, the answer is birds of a feather flock together. Well what does that mean, she says. It means that Christians and Jews, both, are the scum of the earth, hateful, despicable, cowardly, self-absorbed monsters, and worse – people who pay to have their own children tortured to death.

I’ve mentioned the Lutheran Pastor Bahmann here recently. Pastor started visiting the mill in Allentown after Scott Roeder killed George Tiller in a Lutheran Church. That hit a little too close to home for Pastor, and he decided to get involved. A week ago I talked with him for an hour in the office at his church. Here’s what happened later:

When I got home from my meeting with Pastor Bahmann, my wife Margaret asked me how it went.
“I like him a lot,” I said, “but he thinks I’m a terrorist.”
“See? I knew it! You’re going to get us all in trouble. Why do you have to say the things you say and do the things you do?” etc., etc. -- Margaret was beside herself.
“Hold on, hold on,” I said, “He thinks you’re a terrorist too.”
“What! You’re crazy!”
“No, it’s true. You think abortion is murder, don’t you?”
Margaret is no dope, and she could see where this was heading. (long pause)
“It’s homicide, it’s not murder.”
“Now you’re playing with words – no, you are – no, you are – no, you are . . . .” (longer pause)
“You don’t say the victim of an abortion was homicided, do you? You say she was murdered.”
“No, you say she was killed.”
“No, you say she was killed if the woman carrying her is in a car accident, or drowns, or something. In an abortion she is tracked down and pulled apart. You say murdered. And, when you say that, sooner or later someone is going to believe you even if you don’t really believe yourself. She or he is going to take action, and that’s what Pastor Bahmann was talking about.”
“Prayer is the only action anyone should take.”
“Prayers are answered, right? Do you think Jesus is going to appear here again Himself to answer them? Of course not! Instead, He will raise a few, a minuscule number, from our ranks to confront the enemy forcefully and realistically. Some of them will die as Jesus did. We prolifers will continue to attack those few chosen even more vehemently than the kayhaitchers attack them, but as long as child-killing remains legal, one or two will always be raised.” (longest pause)

Stacey & Hutch {So Many Switches . . . So Little Time}

Our story to date: S & H, successful in their nocturnal civic art projects, find themselves optimizing the operation as they talk shop in the long rides in and out of their “donuts.” After a while in these discussions, they begin to see variation in the sitting of the various switches . . . and they ponder about Barkeep Sean, a little bit, too . . .
It came as a subtle surprise to S & H, as they were talking, that not all switches are urban, or, at least, not as urban as they thought.
OK, well, they thought you’d never ask!

Of course any “switch” (central office telco equipment) almost has to be urban in its nature, right? Telephones are a technology dependent, sooner or later, still, on physical copper wires, right? And the most efficient way to locate a switch is at the center of a concentration of subscribers (phone users), right? And the price of copper dictates centralization, right? Well, the CIA thought so when they murdered President Salvador Allende of Chile to get his copper, right? (Don’t start me on the bloody basis of gold, copper, uranium, oil and diamonds just now, OK?)
So, switches tend to be at the center of things, ditty-wise, goes the conventional wisdom. Practically, this means that in the process of AIM-ing at their artistic objective (Adopt, Improvise, Modify) Stacey & Hutch learned early on that they had to find a way to be comfortable in the urban environment, which basically means, operate where there is no cover you’d find otherwise, from hills, mountains, ravines, trees, grass, shrubs, forests, etc.
S&H learned quickly to be part of a tableau, where they were a visible part of it, not hidden behind it. To be visible you have to have a “story,” even if it’s a story that’s never told, but only glimpsed, once, by a peace officer, read, and ignored as consonant with his known:
A street person:
ditzy “girls” on an impulsive lark (their favorite);
tour bus casino visitors;
en route to sick mom over there (1000 miles away);
old friends having a fight away from the kids, etc.
This early, urban success at carefully cultivated “stories” of appearance and explanation did well for S & H to get going, but after a while they couldn’t help but notice that not all switches are alike. Despite the central doctrine of urbanity, some switches had a touch of country, and could be most ricky-tick exploited for same.

You Gotta Kiss a Lot of Switches To Get the Horse to Cross the Stream

. . . um, is that right? But wait!
“Wait, wait, dammit!” Stacey rolled down the window smidge. “Before we get into that I want to talk about Sean.”
“You are hopeless! What would Bob say?”
“I love Bob and you know it. But Sean is interesting, with all his checkered past.”
“Sean has more checkers than Toys-R-Us . . . Hutch opined.
“Poor guy. So, I distract him. Nothing hinky, just friendly. We talk about P.O.’s.”
Hutch twitched around on her seat to Stacey, all alert,
“Spill, girl-friend!”
“I’d thought you’d never ask! Guess what he told the salesman over the phone when he wanted to buy a barrel of paint!”
“A barrel of paint? What the heck for?”
“Well, he wanted a barrel, not ten buckets. He figured he’d save $50 that way, and he’s cheap.. In a nice way.”
“Fifty dollars is fifty dollars . . .”
“Exactly, why not? But the problem is, how to get the factory to sell you just one barrel, when it’s a lot of trouble for them to move just one barrel. The salesman said to Sean, just go over to Home Depot and buy ten buckets. Simple for you, simple for us.
“I wouldn’t know what to say to that . . .”
“Me neither, high pressure wholesale salesman? Forget it.”
“So? . . .
“So, enter the blarney. Sean starts spinning this story about how the paint’s not really for the bar, but instead it’s for his brother, who’s thinking of opening up his own trailer factory.”
“Trailer factory? You mean . . .”
“No, dummy, not truck trailers, but house trailers.”
Hutch drew herself up into a proper sitting posture, “Are you by any chance referring to mobile homes?”
“Whatever, they take a lot of paint if you make a hundred of them, right? So Sean actually asked the salesman, ‘How much for a railroad tanker of paint.’ “
“To paint all the trailer houses his brother was going to make in his new factory, right? He got the salesman’s head all spinning with ideas of making a million bucks commission by supplying this huge new factory, and then he said, ‘Well, my brother wants to do a test painting with just your paint to see if he likes it, and later he’ll order the railroad tanker.’ “
Hutch was goggle-eyed, “A switcheroo, then . . .”
“Sean even sent a pick-up over to the factory, with a Mail Boxes, Etc., address on the P.O., just so the dispatcher wouldn’t see that it was just coming to his funky old bar.”

1 comment:

John Dunkle said...

Hey, I like that, even if I don't know what it means!