THEN AND NOW

SOMEWHERE THERE MIGHT BE A POINT: I fear this post will ramble and seem pointless. If you manage to read it clear through you may scratch your head, ( in confusion, not from a rash ) and just say HUH! Oh! not so different from my regular posts, then. Well, read on and we will see what comes out.
Back then, you know, way back, before even I was born, the inhabitants of this country were the people. AKA Indians. Native Americans. They lived from the land. Migrating within certain boundaries, set by the boundaries of other tribes. Usually tribes strong enough to keep the neighbors from invading their territory. And there was buffalo roaming and deer and antelope playing. And these people lived from these animals, along with many others, and flora and fauna and, well you get the picture. Then along came the other people. From other lands, and they started to settle the land, and they fought one another, and then they fought the Indians. And to help them win the fight, and for other reasons, they killed off the buffalo. Almost. And the Indians moved to reservations, cause there waran't any buffler to assist and edify them. Then the white man moved into the Indian lands and brought cattle. Herds and herds of cattle. To survive on the Buffalo grass. And water. And along came the wolves and the grizzly bears, and the coyote and other animals to kill the ranchers cattle. So they ranchers killed the bears and the wolves, but in spite of all they and the road runner could do, wiley coyote just stayed around. Then along came a group of people claiming that the wolves had a right to live too, so they introduced them back into the wild. But guess what. People now live in the wild, and they still have cattle, and they don't like the wolves killing their cattle. That's why they were hunted to almost extinction decades ago. So now the families children aren't safe from the wolves and the grizzly bears, and if you kill one, the government will arrest you and jail you and fine you, and pat the remaining wolves on their collective heads and say, good doggie, please don't do what you are naturally programmed to do. Eat straw, or something. Hey! maybe they should eat deer. Why oh why would I say that. Well, I'm fixin to tell ya.
In this fair city where I almost live, population 10 or 12 thousand, there seems to be a large population of deer. And they are destroying peoples flowers beds and gardens, and leaving deposits on the lawn. And the people are unhappy. So the decision has been made by the state game department to try to dispose of the deer. By trapping them. (Trapping is illegal in this state for fur bearing animals cause you might catch a wolf.) Or killing them. ( You can't kill a wolf, even if it threatens you and your pets or children. It's against the law ) And even though these people say, let the wolves alone. They deserve to live and eat your cattle. But kill the deer, cause they ate my roses. And the mountain lions and the coyote are following the deer into town. But not the wolves. They are too busy killing cattle. For fun. Several recent cattle kills have been proven wolf kills. For food? No, they didn't eat the cattle, they just brought them down and killed them. Too bad they won't eat deer. Too bad people with a deer destroyed yard can't feel some empathy for the rancher losing cattle to wolves and having to fight environmental groups and the government over it. But the government will kill the deer. Or jail and fine an Idaho man for killing a Grizzly Bear to protect his family. Guess we need a little more of then and a little less of now in this case. And That's The View From The Ditch Bank.

OF LAWS AND LAWYERS

THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS POST: Nor is it a post castigating lawyers. Well, most lawyers. When Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, they lived God's laws. Even after they were cast out, they lived God's laws, cause they knew no other. I don't know at what point man's laws began to come into effect, but it was probably sometime after Cain killed his brother. I do know that lawyers are mentioned in the scriptures. I also know that Judges are also listed in the scriptures, and so it only follows that if there are judges, there needs to be someone trained in the law to present a case to the judge. I have a cousin who is a retired criminal defense attorney. My wife has a cousin who is a retired attorney. Don't know just what kind of law he practiced. I have a daughter in law who is an attorney. I think she practices corporate or business law. I understand and accept that there needs to be attorneys in all manner of life's events. If you have made it this far, know that these statements were only to explain my opinion of lawyers. I might add, well guess I will add, that I understand the need to have man's laws, since man don't want to live God's laws. Too bad, the world would be so much better off if we would. Thus the need for those trained in the law. Now, to the point of this blog.
Here, in the grand ol' State of New Mexico, there are now two cases in the courts that almost boggle the mind. The first one. In 2006, a man, wanted by the police as a suspect in a murder, was pulled over by a County deputy. Did the deputy know who he was pulling over. We will never know, for shortly after he pulled the man over, the deputy was shot and killed. His killer was caught and jailed. Fast forward to 2010, when the New Mexico State Legislature abolished the death penalty as a form of punishment. The deputy killer was subsequently tried and found guilty, and the death penalty was listed as a form of punishment for his crime. Hold on , his attorney said, the death penalty has been abolished. yes, the State said, but years after the killing for which his client was convicted for. Before the killer can be sentenced, a decision has to be made by a judge on whether the death penalty is in place for him. A play on the writing of laws, I assume, but who am I to decide.
Next case. A man robs a bank in Albuquerque. As he leaves, the police are alerted by the bank teller. The police gives chase. There are two women, one 28 years old and one 34, in a car, on their lunch break, sitting in traffic at a red light. The robber, in his attempt to elude the police, crashes into the car with these two women, killing both of them. The robber is unhurt and is arrested. He is now charged with several crimes, including robbing the bank and for killing the two women. Not so fast, says his attorney. He did rob the bank, but the killing of the women was not his fault. So whose fault is it? The bank tellers for alerting the police and the police for giving chase. If they had just let him get away with the robbery, the two women would still be alive. True, says I, but if that is the case, then why have police. Just let people do whatever, and all would be well. NOT. If this man had not robbed the bank in the first place, he wouldn't be in trouble, the women would be alive, raising their children, and the police could have continued eating donuts. Then the man could be arrested for causing the death of the police men for causing them to have a heart attack. HUH! guess the man will end up in jail in any case. And THAT'S THE VIEW FROM THE DITCH BANK!