Episode-1599- Expert Council Questions and Answers 6-26-15 — 81 Comments

    • I love the pics.. the pasture and the cows look delicious!
      (vegetarians.. avert your eyes from the drool coming from my mouth)

    • Darby, thanks for the great answers and advice. A few quick additional things.

      I was planning taking the three bulls and selecting the best, then castrating the other two as all three are yearlings.

      After listening to your thoughts on a level head, I will still probably go look at the herd for sale because I already have the time off work, but will likely not purchase them, but go with stockers for a few years. They will be something I’ll consider in the future, but I need more experience in managing grass and may have a source of grass fed Belted Galloway stockers close to me.

      Thank you very much for your advice.

      • You are most welcome! Hope it was helpful. Yes to taking three cow/calf pairs with bull calves, selecting the best and banding (banding is what we’ve been encouraged to do) the other two. We are actually doing that very thing ourselves this year.

        As for Belted Galloway, I have not had those either but know a couple guys who have. I don’t know the particulars to the herds they came out of (grain vs. grass) but they didn’t have good things to say about growth rate. All info from the show applies to any and all breeds.

        Main thing: Get stockers out of a grass based system and learn with them.

  1. Nick, what if a guy has 2.5-3 acres and just wants to raise some stocker sheep or goats during the grazing season and not overwinter breeding stock. With good forage and good management, couldn’t that be accomplished to a small degree? It would eliminate many of the negative issues with overwintering. Just curious to get your thoughts on that. You can grow a lot of grass on 2.5 acres during the warm season!

    I agree though, rabbits, ducks and laying hens are a great application in conjunction with veggie/fruit production.

  2. My download keeps failing. Is anyone else having that problem?

  3. You can keep a lot more than 2 adult goats on 2.5 acres. In the past I only fed grain to my goats that we were milking them and only fed hay in the winter. With that said, I had 2 adults and a second year whether last year and the year before I had 4 adults and three kids all grazing less than an acre. I had more than enough land for it. I think each paddock is about 1/4-1/3 of an acre and I had 4 that size with a fifth that was much smaller for “sacrifice.” A properly setup 2.5 acre area could maybe FEED a half dozen adults and their kids.

    My neighbor keeps 20-30 adults and their kids on 1/10-1/5 of an acre (more if you include the paths and empty spaces between shelters). He has 30 years of experience and does a fantastic job with his animals. Obviously they are not out roaming on pasture all day but neither are rabbits.

    The electric fence that Nick describers is unnecessary. Well fed goats will not break or jump over standard woven wire fence; they will not even bother the electric if they are well fed (my sacrifice/winter paddock is woven wire). My kids run through the electric when they are young but quickly run back to their mom and stop as they get older (bottom wire 10″-14″).

    An intact buck on the other hand needs a high security prison to keep him in, but this is outside the scope of your question.

    One problem with my goats is that they insist on sleeping in their barn/shelter so they can not be moved around pasture like cattle can be. They will bust through electric to get back home at night. At least mine do.

    Don’t let the advice offered in the podcast discourage you. If you want real advice about goats I recommend you find an expert, mentor, a good book and/or an online community with real experience keeping them.

  4. Wanted to point out that Highland Cattle produce very lean beef..even leaner then some buffalo. Like elk or deer….with so little fat the meat can become dry or tough especially with lean steaks. To compensate…consider this….cooking it past medium with ensure dryness….no beuno….rare mid rare is best…if you have folks who are “scared” of rare or mid rare consider making a mushroom cream sauce or red wine sauce (check Harvest Eating for a red wine sauce recipe) which can cover up some of the red color and help some folks enjoy the meat more…also, when making burgers the addition of a homemade aoli (basic garlic mayo) mixed into the meat can really make a HUGE difference in final moisture and enjoyability. We sometimes get extra lean grass fed beef….you can cook burgers and there is zero fat or juice coming out….they go dry in a NY minute…however, mix in about 1/3 c homemade mayo (only takes 30 seconds to make) and the burgers are MUCH better….consider this…most sausage and salumi (dry cured meats) has added fat in it….usually back or belly fat, ground up, then mixed with ice to keep it from melting…without it….the product suffers. One more consideration, for those raising animals like this consider finishing them on some locally raised and milled grain….non GMO corn, etc. It can be custom milled for you in may parts of the country…finishing them like this can make the moisture and marbling much better. For the bigger cuts…slow cooking with lower temps in a moist environment AKA braising….can produce terrific results…

    • I feel people who are scared of pink to red meat don’t need mushroom cream sauce they need either a blindfold or psychological counseling so that they will cease being responsible for ruining meat. An animal gives its life so we can be fed and then some of you people insist in dishonoring that sacrifice with over cooking, FOR SHAME, a pox on all of you who over cook meat, especially red meats!

      • Went to an African to American wedding. Volenteered as grill guy. Could NOT convince those from the other continent that anything but well done was safe OR desirable. They simply liked it done!

    • Thanks for the advice Keith! Personally, I think that meat this lean is not for me and 90% of my customers would not like it. That’s something for anyone doing this as a business to consider!

  5. When u create the leaderless societies Jack will you let us know please?

    • [sarcasm] No I am going to hide them on some obscure URL, block the search engines and not inform members of TSP, my hope is that they are never found. [/sarcasm]

      • I haven’t listened to this yet..

        But that might be a ‘non-hierarchical society’..

        An ‘anarchy’ can be jam packed with leaders.. 😉

        A ‘leader full’ society? In the constant drone of scarcity.. aren’t we told that leaders are scarce also? Is this ‘natural’ or a created/propagandized scarcity ?

        • Indeed true militias are anarchy. Any man can leave if he chooses, but simply must not desert in combat. All officers are elected by the men that serve under them and can be removed at anytime except during active combat.

          Well run militias have all the typical positions of a military unit, privates, sergeants, LTs, etc. but no position is locked in, leadership is for a time and a purpose and in the end every man is equal.

        • Finally listened to the context..

          How about calling them

          ‘Peer Organizations’

          (as opposed to hierarchical organizations)

  6. Great answer from Steven Harris..

    And John Pugliano’s answer made me dream of the day when we can invest money away from Wall Street. I want to invest in a ‘fund’ that finances quality farms, nurseries, etc. I don’t expect or demand a return that matches or bests the S&P 500. One penny more than I started with would be good enough.


  7. One possible use for UCP camo in northern climates is for use as snow camo. Plain UCP doesn’t blend in great, but better than many other options, and hitting it with white spray paint as Tim explained would work great.

    • At a training a couple years ago I found what the Army’s ACU pattern is good for.

      Concrete rubble.

      The days we spent crawling around in concrete rubble was the only time in my life I chose to wear ACU over multicam or woodland BDU patterns. But, bring on the cheap gear.

      As soon as I heard the question I thought to myself, “RIT dye and spray paint”, before the answer was even played, and I have used spray paint to modify gear to keep costs down for a long time, but I wanted to add that fabric dyes, such as RIT, can be mixed up and put into a spray bottle to do custom camo patterns.

  8. OK. You got me. I suspect that you already know this, but you are making me crazy.

    No such thing as a dukedom. A Duke holds a Duchy.

    Again, I think you know this, and are just making a trademark.

    But I had to say it.

    Love the show.

    • It will remain a Dukedom until the Duke requests otherwise, such is his privilege as a Duke to refer to his holding as he sees fit.

  9. For the first caller (Q on goats and sheep): Goats aren’t sheep and sheep breeds differ, so I’m answering on sheep. Caller researched breeds (smart!) and asked about Dorper. This tells me a lot about caller’s environment & goals. As Jamo says (above), you certainly can have more sheep than 1/acre without exorbitant feed costs. In Darby’s segment, he alluded to a generally-useful stocking figure, 1 “unit” per acre, a “unit” being 1000 lbs of animals (e.g. 1 cow). Dorpers are big (mature weight average just over 200 lbs), so you wouldn’t want more than ten, for sure. And fencing… electric net (not wire) is the standard for rotational grazing (look at Premier website, for example). Yes, sheep will need hay when grass (or browse) isn’t growing, but many breeds, including Dorpers, need no additional grain or alfalfa. (You need some alfalfa pellets or sweet feed as a bribe, sometimes, and occasionally for nutritional support.) And when you buy hay, you are importing fertility, so consider it as a dual-purpose input. (spent hay with its manure has done wonders for my clay soil.)
    If you just want meat, and are not particularly interested in species, go with Nick’s suggestions. If you are attracted to small ruminants because of what they can do for the whole homestead or farm (including property maintenance), visit as many Dorper breeders as you can get to, look at the set-up, ask questions, and talk about your land & goals. Then do the same for meat goats (Boers?) in your area.

  10. Jack, you have hit another home run with this new expert council show. What a way to finish out the work week. This is the best thing since the addition of the history segment. Thanks for all that you bring us.

  11. This link shows potential contamination area for all nuclear power plants. Jack. You are in the 50 mile contamination zone from Comanche but not the potential plume. Guess those who don’t think they are safe as Steven does they could use this to decide where to live.

    • People are very bad at estimating risk. We tend to overestimate the risk of dramatic threats, and to underestimate the risk of the more mundane.

      Ask any actuary, an honest assessment comes down to math: Risk = Severity*Probability

      This is the essence of Jack’s ‘Threat Probability Matrix’. Despite our irrationality:
      (big and scary)*(very low probability) = Low Risk…… e.g. plane crash
      (mundane)*(high probability) = Higher Risk…….. e.g. car crash

      In this way, Steven was right to focus on more mundane things that represent a much greater risk, such as health issues associated with obesity. Perhaps an even more relevant comparison would be the risk associated with living near a coal-fired power plant. While such facilities can’t spectacularly melt down, they constantly release a toxic brew of chemicals. I’ve seen estimates in the tens of thousands of deaths per year attributable to coal, not to mention the likely far greater number of people for whom it causes chronic disease.

      In the end, though, it comes down to what actions will you take. Again, I think this is just math: Utility = Benefit – Cost

      ‘Benefit’ is the neutralization of the risk. The greater the risk, the greater the benefit you get from neutralizing it.
      ‘Cost’ captures all the different types of negatives associated with taking that action, including monetary (how many dollars), time (could you be doing something more useful), lifestyle (do you move somewhere you don’t like because it’s outside of a nuclear disaster radius), etc.

      If the object is to maximize utility, then it can make sense to do things that either have a large benefit, or a small cost. For instance, it would be difficult to justify uprooting your whole life to move away from a nuclear power plant. The risk is very low (despite being scary), so the benefit is small and the costs are enormous. On the other hand, picking up some potassium iodide costs next to nothing but could prove incredibly useful on one very bad day.

      I think this sort of logic should be applied very broadly, but I’ve already gone on way too long with this reply, so I’ll leave just it there.

  12. Chef Keith, Thanks for the answer. You answered the “gamey” flavor part of my question in line with how I was thinking about it. I just wanted to hear a little discussion on that. I love the fig idea. Will likely try that next time we cull.

    Jack, don’t worry, I’m not a dumbass. Thanks for your additional comments.

  13. The government does not belong in ANY marriage….
    Gays cannot force anyone make their wedding cake, or marry them….
    Gays cannot be forced by a baker or church to stop being gay…

    Once again we the people are having the wrong argument.
    …..the issue is, 5 of 9 people just unlawfully told an entire country of 350 million+ people what they can/can’t, will/won’t do.
    Along with the other branches of government, the SCOTUS has exceeded it’s authority, and violated it’s oath to uphold and defend our Constitution.

    • I don’t understand how people keep saying that SCOTUS overreached. They overturned an overreach of the state governments into other people’s lives. They said that the bans were unconstitutional, giving rights and freedom to a section of the population who saw their freedoms taken away by their states.

      • Considering that isn’t what the supreme court is for, thats why people would say over-reaching. They’re supposed to be paying attention to federal issues, not state issues. Either we have rights to determine our own destinies in our states or we don’t.

        • Oh Mike we disagree for once.

          Remember the substitution test, substitute another right.

          Say Oklahoma passed a law saying gay people could not get a concealed carry permit but everyone else could.

          Would you call that a states rights issue?

        • @Jack
          Of course we both know that me and you are in totality agreement regarding individual liberties and rights, but my argument is about neither except our ability to run our own governments.

          My statements are exclusively to the discussion of the supreme courts responsibilities, which is federal scope. The supreme court has absolutely no legal oversight into a particular state’s issues, even though yes thats what they’ve done again and again. The amendments stated under the constitution are exclusively checking federal limits, so what a particular state does or doesn’t do is absolutely none of the federal governments business.

          The problem is the supreme court (as with all other federal things) have been pushed to control everything. They are the masters of what’s right, and all governments under them will bow to their power. If the federal government can’t do it, then states can’t do it either. Absolutely not what the constitution is.

          But oh well, I don’t run or base my life based on what is written on a piece of paper, where the side in question has completely ignored it, or even worse, created propaganda stating it justifies what they do.

        • What you are talking about is the incorporation of the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) to apply to the states.

          If your assertion is that the BOR and other individual restrictions only applied to the Federal Government, you are correct but it has not been the case in over 100 years. The court is responsible to judge CURRENT US LAW and precedent. Under that lens the decision issued was the only one that could have been legally compliant. You know I don’t like to say government did anything well, they never do but legally this decision is accurate.

          I’d give you the same question I gave Dan, if this had been say because Florida refused to issue gays or blacks or women say a concealed carry license and the court ruled the 14th amendment applied, would you agree again under current US law and the world that is, vs. the world as it should be.

        • Let me further clarify, I have no real “dog in the fight” on this beyond the erosion of local “control”, and just pointing out that, yet again, they’re viewed as some sort of moral, ethical, and legal authority over.. literally everything, which is nonsense.

          I’m not up in arms and flabbergasted like everyone else, its purely expected. My parents came into town this weekend and I had to hear the same annoying propaganda nonsense that creates false dichotomies all over the place.

          In the end government isn’t fixing anything, they’re not solving anything, they’re just sticking their large d__k into the pot and stirring it because they’ve got nothing better to do in their lives than (pretend to) control others.

        • But Mike don’t you think this decision may get us both what we want?

          The state no longer issuing marriage license. A measure failed in Alabama but a lot fails before it succeeds. There is movement in Texas to simply no longer issue marriage license. If this occurs less control is the result. I don’t wnat more local control and neither do you, what we both want is LESS CONTROL of people period right? The right wing is damn near sprinting in the direction of stopping the license completely. I think that is great!

          We never have needed the state to preform this function, it at times takes true tyranny to make people see the tyranny that has always been present.

        • @Jack
          Let me first say, everything you’ve said in response I agree with 100%. The practical nature, the pragmatic analysis, all of it.

          But, I’m just simply pointing out, the further idolization of said folks, who are supposed to do one job, and are now doing an entirely different one, and as a result of their work and the way people are treating it, is giving them more power. (Maybe)

          But you bring up an excellent point, and maybe I hadn’t considered this more. If you give the federal government more powers (more authority to dictate), does it not seem more reasonable that more local and state governments are going to start completely side stepping them? The illusion is that the federal government actually controls things, but they just dictate, and state / local / individual organizations follow suit.

          I personally just see the further soviet-style fall of big gubmnit. Take on every responsibility, sending out orders from affar, and people just ignoring them and moving on with the real world.

          I will also say in total agreement about “marriage” not a government issue. But even then, I can point to any issue and say “not a government issue”.

        • This is a sticky one and one I disagree with. Here is how it hangs up though.

          Cops come to my home, want to search I say piss off, they either must get a warrant or piss the hell off out of my face.

          Cops come to my home, want to search, I am not there, my wife having control of house says okay. Cops can search with permission of the home owner. Are now not required to piss off and/or get a warrant.

          This has been accepted as valid for a long time. Any adult of legal age of consent who is a resident in control of a property can waive their right to a warrant.

          The sticky wicket, cops come to my house, wife says sure you can search, I say piss off or get a warrant. This decision now states that I must stand down, if I do not I am “interfering with an investigation” and trust me, “resisting arrest” will be added to that charge.

          Why? What the court is saying is that since either party can give permission, one is all you need. I don’t like this one, I disagree with it but under US law I see the logical argument made for it. It isn’t cut and dry.

          My view is we both have a right we can choose to waive or not waive. If I say no, my rights were violated if they do it anyway. But just as my wife is free to invite a friend in, she is free to invite a vampire or a police officer.

          Taking the other side, imagine my wife wanted to let someone in my home, I say no, she says yes, I physically prevent her from doing so, would that be legal? The answer is of course no, she has equal right to the property. So if she can let her friend in legally against my wishes, why not an officer of the law?

          Another way to see this you and I go into business as equal partners. You bind the company to a contract. Simple contract law says I am equally bound to said contract. Join occupancy is an implied contract, meaning both tenants have equal rights to access the property and to transfer said rights.

          This seems almost impossible to defend against, this would be my Hail Mary pass if I were arguing this case.

          While the above is true, I would not have to allow a person into my home even with my wife’s consent if they were committing an illegal action. Say my wife falls in with dope dealers and she brings a dealer to the house with a kilo of coke to set up shop. I say no fucking way, they hide the coke and call the cops. So long as the officers believe my story, “they have cocaine and hid it somewhere over there and want to enter the home with it” I am totally justified in using force to protect my home from the commission of a crime.

          Even if they don’t find the coke, as long as my story is plausible I am good to go, if they find the coke the wife and dealer are off to the clink! Why? The action was illegal.

          So I would say that I do have a right to resist a search if I use my equal rights to the property to deny the search because said search is then illegal.

          Would I argue that in front of a judge? Sure. Would I bet my ass on it and risk multiple felonies if I was faced with the choice? Um, fuck no!

        • Reading this later..

          It makes me realize that there is problem with the ‘state sovereignty’ idea itself. Which is it introduces a fun *new* dichotomy + a nice framing job:

          Where do you want MORE GOVERNMENT:
          1 – At the federal level
          2 – At the state level

          So.. I think I’ll skip that one.. and answer ‘neither for me, thank you.’

          (Someone is of course going to say: I don’t want MORE government, I just want the same amount.. but controlled by the state. Generally.. it doesn’t work that way. The Fed doesn’t ‘turn over’ authority/control to anyone.. they may delegate punishment, and beef up local control (police militarization money).. but they aren’t about to say.. disband the FDA (or the bureau of indian affairs for that matter) and turn that over to the states.)

        • Agree in principle and then there is practice. We both know there will still be a state all the days of our life. Period.

          So we have what we have. States rights are useful if properly used. Give me a saw and a hammer and I can build a house or I can take one down with the same tool. The tool is what it is, it is the application.

          State sets law allowing something to be done the fed says you can’t do. This creates LESS not more government. Such as pot is legal. Sadly entire “enforcement departments” are being created in some states to enforce legal use, sigh. It is still a step in the right direction.

          Gay marriage, mostly states used this to make MORE government.

          What I would do now if I was in charge of Texas as to gay marriage.

          1. While I would prefer to return to anyone can tell anyone to fuck off and not serve them for any reason the fed has my hands tied. So I would put in a religious protection act. This would say if you don’t want to participate in any and all religious rituals in any manner including by providing material or services, you do not have to.

          2. Push to remove the licensing of marriage from state authority, return marriage to being between the parties involved.

          Perfect? Hell no. Better than now or last year? Yea, hell yea!

          Let me tell you that is the best we can do for now on this issue. I know what I want but even if you gave me the governorship and a WILLING state legislature that is about the best we could do under current federal law on that issue.

          Instead our governor is going to be a dumb ass and do number one ONLY for government workers as policy not law, and not do number two. This will be WORSE and lead to definitely MORE government.

    • @TrekFan, first it was 6-3 not 5-4. Next sorry it doesn’t work that way. When a state starts issuing license for ANYTHING, the 14th amendment should apply.

      Now you and I totally agree that government should not be in the marriage business. But this was not the issue in front of the court. The issue was simply if Oklahoma will give me a marriage license to marry my wife, should they also be forced to give you one if you want to marry oh say “The New Mike” here on the blog.

      As I said to Mike you have to use the substitution test to be sure your bias isn’t fing things up for you.

      Say two gay guys want to form a company as partners. They need a business license and go to the state, the state says no, we don’t allow gays to be in business together in our state, you have to form an LLC and then that corporation can get a license but you can’t form a simple partnership that is for strait people only.

      The great news though is conservatives already RUNNING to the libertarian and anarchist position calling for states to stop issuing license for marriage period.

      FWIW do you know the ONLY REASON states first started issuing a license for marriage? To prevent interracial marriages.

      So yes you are correct the right answer is no marriage license and let marriage be between the parties involved.

      But as the situation currently sits and with case law as it currently is, the 3 dissenting justices clearly broke their oaths! A second year law student would comprehend that the 14th amendment applies here. Only personal sentiment would change that.

      • Oh and SCOUTUS said NOTHING about churches and churches DO NOT have to marry anyone. You know how you hear Gay Couple XYZ is suing a Church. Lets admit that couple is a pair of assholes and should be told to cram it up their cram holes and go on with life. Sure we all agree.

        But do you know what those lawsuits are never against what we think of as a church. Ever hear of them suing the Methodist Church, a Baptist Church or say the Catholic Church? No? Really? Why not?

        Well because they sue private wedding chapels that are in for profit businesses not churches.

        Is it still wrong? Sure but it isn’t what you are led to believe is it?

        What these people should do is simply think.

        Oh you want a gay wedding cake, well okay but I don’t think I am going to do a very good job on this one. Oh you want to be married, find I will give the sermon on fire and brimstone and the sin of homosexuality when I do your ceremony though.

        People need to learn to solve their own problems.

        • Least anyone take my stance wrong for my comment above. I am an ordained minister and would marry any couple. So my point isn’t discriminatory it is that people should be able to choose who they do and don’t do business with. If you force me to do business with a customer I personally don’t want, I will do a really shitty job.

        • …What ever happened to business signs that say:
          “This establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason.”
          You said you would “just do a crappy job?” How could you even entertain capitulation to violations of your conscience?
          I wonder how gays would feel if they were “FORCED” to have the gospel preached to them.

          What if someone wanted the same Christian baker to put “hetero”sexual porn on a cake? -or other worse violations offensive to HIS OWN CONSCIENCE? For example, beastiality, simulated zombie guts, dead bloody animals for PITA?- Whatever it may be!
          The answer should be, AT BEST, a polite “NO. I will not make that cake, I disagree with it.”
          At worst, “Go Screw Yourself, and get the hell out of my store.”
          …..I refer to the sign mentioned above.
          Americans need to regrow some balls and say, “I will NOT comply.”

        • I’m not jumping into this debate, and I think Jack’s right that what Dan is pointing out doesn’t have a direct link to the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. That being said, this decision will be used by the extreme left to make Dan’s point valid. There are NUMEROUS court decisions that fly in the face of the first amendment surrounding private business citing their faith to not serve gay weddings. Jack’s right, they should just take their business elsewhere and patronize someone who shares their ideals (hello free market!). But the extreme left doesn’t do that. Case in point:

        • Good job you found the ONE legitimate cake case, might I again say ONE case of this being legitimate and of concern.

          I expect it also to fail on appeal.

        • Like I said ONE LEGITIMATE CAKE CASE. Cake, being the important thing. Why? Because if I hear one more time about a cake that wasn’t I am going to jump off a bridge.

          The NM ruling is tragic, it really is. But businesses do need to get smarter and THIS IS A TOPIC WE NEED TO DISCUSS as a nation. We really do, not gay rights but the right of a business to refuse service.

          We need this and we also all NEED to be clear on WHO IS DOING WHAT.

          All the bitching is now about what, “states rights” but it isn’t the federal government saying you have to take pictures or make a cake is it?

          This is great because it is an opportunity for people in THEIR states to deal with this as THEY CHOOSE.

          I am tired of hearing about the extreme left too man, you know why, the extreme right is just as bad. And again none of this has to do with SCOTUS, at all. Well some on the left try to make it that way, sure, but someone is always trying to do something somewhere all the time. So what!

          It is now up to the people of their individual states to determine what needs to be done about right of refusal of service. Period and again that is a good thing.

          Not one of these instances has pertained to federal law, not one.

        • I never said the extreme right was not just as bad, I would agree that they are. And you are right – this is a states issue (and states should NOT issue a marriage license). But with this SCOTUS decision in the rear view mirror, my point (again) is that Dan’s point (while wrong concerning the SCOTUS decision) isn’t moot and this will become a federal issue. That’s not a far fetched assertion Jack, and was my only point for jumping in here.

          I’m not trying to make a point beyond the fact that I think Dan is onto something. And while I agree with you it is a discussion that our nation needs to have, I doubt (in this particular case) that the extreme left is going to allow that to happen.

          Food for thought I guess is my point. I just remember hearing about these in the news, so I looked them up for reference. I’m sure I could find more but I need to go load 430 chickens up. We’re taking a little drive, but only I’m coming back 🙂

        • Again ONE CAKE, good luck with your load.

          What I can say is when I have investigated these types of things, 9 times out of 10 they were not as reported. FWIW that is the same cake in your first link.

        • Actually they are not the same link. First one is in Oregon, second (cake) in Colorado.

          And while one is one, two is a coincidence, six found in two minutes means there is an attack on the first amendment (whether you agree with the religious right or not – its an attack and that point can’t be argued).

          Regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, the first amendment is the first amendment and the government should not be punishing businesses for not wanting to take part in a “ceremony”. Of course any rational person would just take their business elsewhere, leave negative google, yahoo and yelp reviews and let the free market take its course but I digress.

          As an example: While I don’t think it is right for say the KKK to bash minorities, it is their right under the first amendment to be as ugly, ignorant and stupid as they wish to be.

          My “only” point is that this particular SCOTUS ruling will lead to more attacks from one side on the other with the first amendment caught in the middle. Whether he realizes it or not, Dan was saying the same thing. Once we begin to lose our first amendment rights, we are all of us on a very slippery slope that goes straight down. But then again I think most of us already realize that.

          I do hope this leads to states dumping marriage licenses – it one less infringement into our lives. That would be a huge positive that I didn’t even consider!

        • First I don’t think anyone should have to make a cake for anyone they don’t want to.

          But making cakes is a BUSINESS, not a form of speech.

          Let us try the substitution test, guy goes into a diner, sits down, wants a slice of pie, owner says get the fuck out, we don’t serve white people here. Should that be legal? and Is that legal?

          Contrary to the tall tales no actual CHURCH has ever even been threatened with anything regarding this only for profit businesses that call themselves chapels.

          Now my stance is as follows,

          I and any business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason as long as the business is a private company and not funded in ANY WAY with public dollars. That is what I THINK.

          However, it isn’t what is, under current law, a judge is right when he says you do have to take pictures for these people or make this person a cake. These again are STATE and LOCAL laws. The law is the issue, not the way the judge interprets it. If you read the results of the case about the photography in New Mexico all the judges agreed with that, one wrote a concurring opinion that basically stated this was bullshit, but that the law was clear. You could tell it killed him to concur but by oath he did so.

          Why is it we always say we DON’T want judges writing law from the bench until we wish for them to write it our way?

          Personally I feel the gay community needs to get their shit strait and cut this shit out. I figure if they simply made a website and listed companies that were truly anti gay, the market in its current for would do the rest.

      • Sorry.
        I edited my larger post without changing the numbers.
        My original point was going to be, a “5 to 4” vote is all it takes.
        ..almost a coin toss.
        Basically, it’s not even “9” people making our choices.
        Not to infer that “9” is okay either.
        It is not SCOTUS’s job to bypass the other branches of gov’t. ., render their “opinions”, change the meanings of words, add or subtract words, and enact them as commands, and call their opinions law.
        They- and all branches of gov’t – need to honor their sworn oaths to
        Uphold and Defend the Constitution.

        • Actually it is exactly the courts job to do what they did and what they did isn’t any of the shit you just said.

          Again I challenge you to substitute the issue at hand.

          Say Oklahoma refused to issue carry permits to gays or blacks or women?

          Say Florida refused business license to two or more people if they were gay or black or women and said you can still do it but you must first form a corporation and we will issue the license to the corp (domestic partnership).

          No one changed the meaning of any words, the Christian right does not get to decide what the word marry means to anyone except themselves.

          Again would you be okay with the two scenarios I just substituted above, I doubt it. And if the court ruled both to violate the 14th amendment I bet you would say it was right, would you not?

          Hence if so emotion is leading your conclusions because you simply do not like the result.

        • What the hell is wrong with you?
          What the hell are you talking about?
          Why can’t you ever respect any opinions other than your own?
          Your last rant has nothing to do with my points.

          To your points…

          There should be NO friggin carry “permits”-period.
          Our 2A proclamation is all we need.

          Not talking about “Florida”- — a PRIVATE baking business.

          Gays getting married is not the issue- them FORCING people to do their will against others religious beliefs-IS the issue.
          Again- STATES & THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT have NO business in my vows with my wife. – or gays either.

          Yes I know when and why marriage licenses came about.

          No emotion, just truth.
          But yes, I don’t like being TOLD what to do/not do by big government overlords- or gays- or preachers-or scotus.
          Apparently you do.

        • What private baking business. Do you know the specifics or the results of that case, doubtful. At this point I have been able to find one and only ONE valid claim of this occurring, where it went to court and the court at least threatened to enforce the decision. One. To read the headlines you’d think it was happening every day. This one by the way started in 2013, so we can both agree it isn’t linked to the current SCOTUS decision.

          Of course there should be no carry permits but sorry there are. There should also be no business license either but there are.

          There is the world as it should be and the world that is. The SCOUTUS decision has NOTHING to do with a cake, never did, doesn’t. All these stories of people being forced to do shit like that are bull! You do have to read more than the headline. Like the pizza thing, no one even ever asked them to cater any wedding, it was all bullshit. The two so called “pastors” in Idaho that were “threatened with jail” if they didn’t marry a gay person, also bullshit. 100% fabrications. Never ever ever happened.

          So I will repeat my questions to you, this time try not to be so emotional.

          In the world that IS not the world as you and I think it should be…

          If Oklahoma refused to issue gays a concealed carry license, should that be challenged in court and in the world as it IS, what would would be the proper and legal decision by the court?

          Next if Florida refused to allow a business license to a gay couple and told them they could not have a simple partnership but must first form a corp or an LLC and the license would only be issued to the company but any other two people could just do business as a partnership, what should the courts decision be on that.

          There are two reasons you are mad at me here and neither is really about me. They are both because I refuse to let this debate be led into areas that don’t apply.

          Again you keep making this about cakes, businesses, etc. The court rendered NO OPINION about such matters, it only applies to the states issuance of a license.

          Second is because I am refusing to allow a response such as “the government should not even be in this business” pertain to the question being debated. I completely agree with this opinion but it doesn’t apply to the world that is.

          If government is to issue license it is done with public money, in public trust. To be constitutional under US Law it may not discriminate based on race, religion, sex, etc. The moment you change the issue from marriage to any other thing, it becomes clear and this is why you are angry.

          I didn’t insult you, I didn’t say anything bad about you, I simply stated my opinion and you are upset as a result. You know why? You haven’t made a single logical argument against my opinion and I suspect you can’t figure out how to do so. This is why you keep leaning on the cake issue (which is both over blown and way predates the actual thing debated the SCOUTUS decision) and what government should not do in the first place which we agree on, yet isn’t the point.

          Do you carry? If you do do you do so with license? If so why? Why not just carry without license?

          I carry with license, in spite of the fact that I find it to be unconstitutional because of the world that IS vs. the world as it should be.

          I and I bet you pay income tax, though it is absolutely unconstitutional in form, why, because of the world that IS vs. the world as it should be.

        • One more thing what you are saying to me personally here is as follows.

          Dan tells Jack that Dan thinks Jack is wrong, this is okay.

          Jack tells Dan that Jack thinks Dan is wrong, this is not okay.

          Please consider that.

        • I also didn’t say to do it crappy, I said I would tell them, well it is going to be crappy. I just bet most would go elsewhere, it would also neuter the debate and end the problem 99% of the time.

          And I like being told what to do, it is clear you are in a very emotional state. As always I want government to be as tiny as possible but I do think if we make a law it should apply to all equally, specifically in the PUBLIC sector, where this decision was based.

      • … it was a 5 to 4 vote, not 6-3.
        I refer to my original point,
        …. a 5 to 4 vote is all it takes….almost a coin toss, to tell an entire nation how to behave, or not to.

  14. A few thoughts on John Pugliano’s Question & Answer:
    1. Regarding Texas home prices, what may seem like stupid prices and a sure sign of a housing bubble to someone living in Texas, may also look like a really good deal to someone in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Boston, or Chicago who is sick of the BS where they are and can sell their house, buy one in Texas, and use the equity in their previous house to give up their mortgage entirely.
    However, that may explain Texas prices increasing, but my house in Southern California has increased dramatically in value over the past year, and there seems to be nothing behind it other than blind speculation. Which I find very troubling.
    2. Regarding the transportation industry, I’m not sure if it’s just a regional thing or not, but at least out here, prices have gone up and trucks are full. Every time I speak to trucking companies their telling me they are busier than they can handle etc. Combine that with gas/oil prices still remaining relatively low, and it seems like there’s a lot of profits to be made in the trucking industry right now. I wonder if the information in the stock market is more a reflection on the way things were, rather than the way things are right now. Or, if the transportation industry as a whole is just not reflective of what I’m experiencing in the Southwestern US.

  15. Jack,

    I don’t comment here to argue with like minded brothers. So, Let’s try it this way,

    You’ve said many times “No victim- No crime”…agreed.

    …the three branches of government are violating their sworn oaths… screwing us, stealing from us, lying to us, pitting us against each other (the dichotomy), usurping our Creator given rights, ….charging, convicting, and punishing the entire Nation without trial for the actions of a few scumbags, etc…..

    …that makes US the victims…,
    …which makes THEM the criminals.

    I choose to give ZERO trust, aid, comfort, accolades or credibility to any criminals actions.

    That’s my position, regardless if they placate one group of us victims with an occasional bone dipped in bullshit soup.

    • I agree with that, but again I noticed you won’t answer the question about concealed carry.

      I am not trying to be a dick but man there is a REASON you won’t.

      I bet you do carry, I bet you do have license to do so.

      Of course you and I both agree government is not to be trusted but are you really saying you oppose equal protection under the law.

      I will also ask you this, if states STOP issuing license period, would that be a win in your view?

      • Okay brother,
        (If your comment was for me)
        I will answer you.

        I do not currently have a valid CWP,-my second permission expired- a looong time ago, waaay back in ’05.
        I still have it in my wallet as a reminder of how stupid I was.

        So Yes, I became illegal OVERNIGHT. (according to the criminals)
        And I am ashamed of myself for giving in to second permission many years ago, before I woke up.
        Will I carry if I feel it’s necessary for my family’s safety? Absafriggenlutely.

        ….”equal protection under the law”, well,… next to: “we’re the government and we’re here to help you..”, that’s the king of all oxymoron’s.
        But Yes , in principal, but not as implemented by the criminals.

        If man is to be truly free, yes, if states stopped issuing licenses it would be a win, imho.
        Because, If I lost my license, I wouldn’t forget how to drive.
        When my CCW expired, I didn’t turn into a murderous lunatic.
        ..And why do I need the “state” in my marriage or bedroom? (even if I married a black woman.)
        Licensing does not make anyone safer from drivers, gun owners, married people, etc….imho, it makes it much worse by having them, enriching the state.
        Some form of I.D. is another story.

        • So you chose to not carry or to be a felon and ruin your life if caught?


          But again I ask, if this was the case before the court, right to carry being denied for color, race or sexual orientation and it was ruled to be equal protection under the law would you disagree?

          I would ask if you pay taxes but I believe in the 5th under such circumstances. Yet the same applies.

          Imagine a high tax rate for being black?

          Again we seem to have a disconnect between the world as it is and as it should be. I just hope you don’t ever really regret a decision you have made based on it, I really mean that man. Choosing not to carry is one thing, choosing to do so and risk felony conviction is another.

      • I have no desire to go to jail.
        But someone MUST stand.
        If we all stood, none would go to jail.

        There is no disconnect, The following IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
        NOT case law. The language is clear as crystal.
        Again, anyone in government that has violated their sworn oath is a traitor.
        Not fantasy-fact, it may not seem so, but read it for yourself.
        How can any of us go to jail if the following still applies?…
        Read it slowly. It says it all.
        Article VI
        (…..paragraph one omitted)
        This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

        ….America is truly dead if Article VI and the 2nd Amendment mean nothing.

        If rights are not equal, how can there be “equal protection under the law?”- that’s why I called it an oxymoron- omitting any group or person makes it a lie on its face.
        The term itself is just another lie, because some are more equal (or special) than others in every aspect of society.
        I.e., they want to take our guns, yet they can have all they need for their security.

        It’s “currently legal” to carry in my state, but, I don’t like to advertise and give the advantage to street thugs.

        • Dan, I don’t know what to say but you are not taking a stand in any meaningful way. Blog comments are not a “stand” and I am very happy this is all you have done, if you do take a real stand on this the way you infer I will have to watch a good man go to prison. I invite you to take a good hard look at your current stance and deeply consider it on a different level. If not this is a free world as to what you choose to do or not do, I respect your choice but I think anger is blinding your logic.

      • Well then….. I guess this is true.

        “….America is truly dead if Article VI and the 2nd Amendment mean nothing.”

        • First you may want to read this book before you pronounce America dead based on what you THINK it used to be. frankly the way most people think America was, is a way we never were.

          Next your argument started out about states rights. Well the 2nd amendment as drafted and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights were only meant to apply to the federal government. Hence as drafted the constitution and the bill or rights allow for any individual state to regulate arms, free speech, etc. as they saw fit and the federal government got no say at all.

          This is the only reason the states signed on to the constitution. This is fact you can look it up if you doubt me. So as drafted the 2nd prohibited the Central government from taking your guns but not the state of your residence from doing the same.

          Over a period of slightly over 100 years the Supreme Court committed something we now call, the incorporation the Bill of Rights; prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments.

          Hence under an actual constitutional interpretation unless your state of residency has a constitutional protection for the right to keep and bare arms, they have every CONSTITUTIONAL right to restrict the same.

          It was what we call an “activist court system” that from about 1868 to the early 1960s incorporated the Bill of Rights (except for the 7th amendment which is still not incorporated) as to applying to all citizens and restricting the states.

          So do you really want what you claim to want?

          As to Article VI, I imagine that you mean this part, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

          Well sir, that is what the court just did. While this was written before the 14th amendment, when the 14th was written, it became part of “the constitution” and therefore part of the contract between government and the people. As such it guaranteed and equality of treatment, coupled with the incorporation of the bill of rights this requires that no person be discriminated against and that all be treated equally under the law. This means quite simply that no matter your or my thoughts on gay marriage once a state enters into the practice of issuance of a license for anything they must apply an equal standard of issuance to all individuals.

          To be clear as an anarchist, I do not think anyone needs the state to be in marriage, I also have NOTHING against gay people. But even if I did, even if I hated gay people, even if I thought it was sinful and destined them for hell, if I were a justice sworn to interpret the law accurately, I would still have to agree with this decision.

          Again I think many states may soon simply bow out of this business.

  16. Darby, you said folks need to learn how to manage their grass first. I’m sure the answer to this could be its own podcast. How would someone go about learning to manage their grass?

    The reason I ask is, I have an offer in on 10 acres and I know someone has been cutting hay on the place. I’m not sure what’s there but if I end up with this property I’d like to get started on the right foot.

    • Duane that could be its own podcast, or its own “class” (hint-hint)!

      The easiest thing to do is get some fence up, improve your forages and get some stockers. But before that read some books, visit some farms, watch some youtube videos, attend a conference or class (again, hint-hint) and learn what you can. Then start grazing!

      In time you’ll learn to scale your daily rotational grazing paddocks up or down based on the forage quality, time of year, soil conditions, stocking density (live weight lbs/acre) etc. It does take a few years to really get things down and start to do a good job, so have more grass than you do cows in the beginning! I have been at it for six seasons now and I feel like I’m really starting to get the most out of my pastures and not make big mistakes (except when I try and take a short cut).

      Some reading resources to consider to get a good start:

  17. I liked the part where the Wheaton scream (from “The Big Bang Theory” was played to introduce produce Paul! I actually recently posted that same YouTube video link on a thread over at in the bee forum. I could not get any videos to embed and stated that video goes through my mind each time I try but fail to embed a video. Makes me smile every time. Thanks for the smile!

  18. @Jack

    A few replys on what you said in different places, and then you can have the last word brother.

    “Blog comments are not a “stand”…”,
    My stand has been since 2005,..since then, I do all I can to enlighten gun owners how they have been duped, and will eventually neutered by second permission. The only reason I talked about my details here was to satisfy your curiosity on whether I carried or not.

    …on my “argument starting with states rights”,
    I think you misunderstood me, individual states cannot trump “federal” Constitutional (nationwide) Rights. AKA Speech, Religion, Arms, Press…etc.
    If anyone thinks they can, get caught tresspassing on a posted federal railroad in your state.
    On Article VI,…I actually meant BOTH paragraphs shown.
    Article VI
    (…..paragraph one omitted)
    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;
    but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.(end)

    ….There’s a Difference in timing between “drafts”(prelim. version) and “ratification”(validation).
    Drafts don’t matter.-
    Some wanted to keep slaves too.
    “Life , Liberty and P r o p e r t y” was changed to “Life, Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness”
    to protect against the slave issue.
    The Accepted version of the Second Amendment is clear.
    “Shall Not be infringed” means exactly that.

    …Article VI is also very clear-
    …both are just being IGNORED for the “opinions” and “agendas” of the oath breaking criminals “in charge”.
    The following portions of Article VI seem VERY clear to me.
    “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;……shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;…”

    Let me first be clear, I don’t care what consenting Gays do with each other.
    HOWEVER, In my opinion, (Bible NOT included) it’s unnatural and perverse against natures obvious design.
    Animals do not have reasoning capabilities, or choices with their obtuse behaviors- humans do.
    I do care about being forced by the “State” to marry gays against any of the peoples First Amendment Rights.
    It’s coming, mark my words.
    Soon it will be “do it, or loose tax exemption”, or worse.

    I re-read Article XIV several times, I think you were talking about Section 1, (Equal protection.)
    It’s funny(not), the various criminals in charge usually “rule” opposite way with the Second Amendment, VS, with the current equal protection for gays, (or, “art” like Jesus in a jar of urine.)
    On the one side they’re affirming- or “upholding”, a “law” saying “Just because you don’t like this ruling, it’s the LAW of the land!”
    on the other hand they’re picking and choosing which laws they “feel” like protecting.

    That’s all I’m gonna say brother, these are my opinions…. these opinions and three bucks won’t buy a cup of Starbucks coffee.
    You have the last word.

    • Good luck and be careful that your so called “education” doesn’t cost someone a good portion of their lives. Nothing you have said above even makes any sense except in your own world. I am done with this, I fear that some day if you mean half of what you said I will sadly hear that you are in a prison. No one has been duped. The law is what the law is. We may disagree with it but it doesn’t change what is.

      What you are saying here make me thing of this, it is that bad,