San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, June 12, 2015

Billionaire Socialists Are Ignorant And Immoral

In an article by Robert Frank posted on cnbc.com yesterday entitled, "Billionaire luxury chief says wealth gap is 'unfair,'" the argument is made that wealthy people are evil simply because they are wealthy.   Furthermore, it is alleged that the mere fact wealthy people have more than others is also immoral.  This is, of course, the standard doctrine of wealth found in all socialists these days so I am not surprised by it.  What does constantly surprise me is that rich people who are the targets of envy filled socialists do not hesitate to agree with the socialists about their wrongheaded economic doctrines.  How can they be so stupid?  I guess it just goes to show that one does not have to have economic smarts to become rich.  Wealth is attained by serving others but it does not follow that wealthy people eventually come to understand economic principles and that they are wealthy as a direct result of their service to others. They too fall prey to the charms of socialism.  Here is some of what Robert had to say:
"The billionaire chairman of luxury giant Compagnie Financiere Richemont said changes in technology will create a massive underclass and growing inequality that could spark 'envy and hatred' of the wealthy. In a speech Monday at the Financial Times Business of Luxury Summit in Monaco, Johann Rupert said the most important issue for the luxury industry and economies globally is the structural unemployment caused by robots, artificial intelligence and the new machine age. Inequality will accelerate in the coming years due to the growth in structural unemployment coupled with a 'new abundance' for the global winners, he said. That will cause 'envy, hatred and social warfare' against the winners in the new economy.  'We can't have the point 1 percent of the point 1 percent taking all the spoils,' he said. 'Now folks those are our clients. But it's unfair and it's not sustainable. I don't know what new social pact we'll have, but we'd better find one. Otherwise our clients will be targets. They'll be hated, despised....This is really what keeps me up at night, because people with money will not wish to show it. If your child's best friend's parents go unemployed, you don't want to buy a car or anything showy....We are destroying the middle class, it will affect us, and it's unfair.'"
Let's break this nonsense down one piece at a time.  Bob, if I can call him that, begins by telling us that billionaire Johann Rupert believes that inequality of net worth will be the "spark" that will ignite "envy and hatred of the wealthy."  Do you think?  When was the last time someone from the lower 51% of the net worth spectrum made the decision to be filled with envy for someone poorer than himself?  I would be willing to wager good money that that never happens.  Of course people only have sinful emotional reactions towards those who have more than they do.  That is the very nature of sin.
Rupert, according to Bob, does not stop there however.  He goes on to describe a process of causation that eventually brings about the undesirable end result of hatred for the rich.  It is at this point things become most interesting.  Rupert says that inequality of income and net worth will accelerate in the coming years because of a "new abundance for the global winners," whatever that means.  Then, the new abundance for the global winners will become the cause of envy, hatred and social warfare against the rich.   There are two huge errors evident in Rupert's thinking on this matter.  Can you spot them?
The first error is his belief that the rich become rich because they somehow win a magical lottery in which they are assigned a larger share of the static global wealth pie than others.  He calls this the "new abundance for the global winners."  His concept does not correspond to the real world.  In the real world a person becomes wealthy because he serves the consumers.  (I am ignoring those who become wealthy because of their association with coercive governments in this discussion.)  The more an entrepreneur serves the consumers the more income he receives and the more wealth he accumulates.  That is called the free market and it is a decidedly moral practice.  He who serves others the most is rewarded the most.  The men and women who come to have more material wealth than others are not "winners" in the sense that they have somehow unfairly been able to garner a larger portion of a static pie of wealth.  They are winners in the sense that they have caused economic growth (the pie has grown thanks to them, it is not static) by serving others and, as a direct result of their efforts, they receive greater material wealth.  They have earned what they have and they deserve to get it.  Others who are unwilling or unable to do the same level of work and serve the same number of consumers will have lesser degrees of wealth.  That too is a very good thing.  Nobody should be able to get something for nothing.  The free market is intensely fair.  Each participant gets precisely what he deserves based upon how much he serves others.
The second error, and it is the fundamental principle underlying socialism, is the belief that having material wealth is the cause of envy in others who have less material wealth.  This belief is the direct result of living in a post-Christian world where the doctrines of original sin and total depravity have been long since forgotten.  This belief is also the direct result of living in a world that worships government and assigns to it the task of reassigning the wealth of those who serve others the most to those who generally do not serve others at all.  Rupert flat out asserts that the wealth of a rich person is the cause of envy in a less rich person.  That is patently false.  The sins of envy and covetousness spring straight out of the heart of the sinful individual who expresses those emotions.  Those sinful emotions turn into actions whenever they are reinforced by a God-hating society which rewards stupid ideas such as the innate immorality of wealth held by others.  Strange, to my view, is the problem of how that wealth somehow gets laundered and goes from being evil to good simply because it is transferred from the person who earned it to a person who did not by an all knowing and all caring government.  The socialists have never answered that question and I suspect they never will.
Rupert also goes on to say that it is "unfair" for people who earn money to keep their money.  He does not say why it is unfair.  Indeed, based upon the argument he has made so far the only reason it is unfair for a person to keep what he has is because some person who does not have that item decides that he wants it.  Somehow my desire for what you have makes what you have unfair to me.  Could someone please explain that moral principle to me please?  Yesterday I posted to this blog and told parents to never teach their children to share.  Today we have a perfect example of the fruit of that horrific teaching.  Johnny sees Suzy playing with a toy that she has purchased with her own allowance money.  He wants to play with the toy but he has blown all his money on candy.  So Johnny goes up to Suzy and demands that she share her toy with him.  If she refuses to do so she is being "unfair."  If she is unwilling to do so she has become the bad person.  What a corrupt and distorted world we live in today.
Rupert confesses his love for the omnipotent and beneficent state in his final comments.  To address the problem of the sinful envy of others he does not decide to rebuke them for their sin and tell them to repent.  On the contrary, he believes that those who have money are immoral and behaving unfairly.  To fix this nonexistent problem he calls upon the government.  He concludes by asserting that "I don't know what new social pact we'll have but we had better find one."  In other words, to placate and assuage the sinful envy of those who have less, it is the duty of government to create programs of wealth redistribution that will reward the non-productive at the expense of those who have dedicated their lives to serving others and thereby accumulated great wealth.  Rupert believes that the best way to keep the masses at bay is to give them what they demand, namely, the income and wealth of people who actually serve others for a living.  Somehow he is incapable of seeing how his solution is the real immoral act in this discussion.  Somehow he has managed to turn the act of theft into a virtue. The sinful emotion of envy also becomes a virtue while the virtuous action of serving others inevitably leads to the immoral condition of having wealth.  What a logically convoluted world exists in the mind of socialists. 

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Don't Teach Your Children To Share

I was in Washington Park the other day and I heard something that almost made me crash my bicycle.  Washington Park is a city park near downtown Denver that used to be a real nice place for cyclists to gather and ride together.  There is a 2.2 mile paved road that goes around the outside of the park that is perfect for time trialing, sprints and, if you are willing to ride long enough, long distance workouts.  I have long thought about what it would be like to do a Washington Park century.  A century is a 100 mile ride.  It would involve 45 laps around the park.  To date I have not attempted to do it but I think about it practically every time I ride there.
I wrote that Wash park, as the locals refer to it, used to be a nice place to ride.  It is no longer.  The socialists who manage the Denver City park system have so over regulated the park that it is practically impossible to have any fun there anymore.  There are signs everywhere describing all of the new rules that must be followed as well as the penalties for failure to do so.   I set a personal best one hour record several decades ago at Wash park when I averaged 22.5 miles per hour for an hour.  I don't think that I could beat that record at my current advanced age but I still like to try and maintain a 20 mph average for an hour every once in a while.  I went down to the park to give it a go only to find that a maximum speed limit of 15 mph had been posted for bicycles.  As I completed my laps I counted and discovered that there were 13 consecutive warning messages painted on the road informing me that if I exceeded 15 mph I would be in violation of the law and subject to fines and who knows what other punishments.  One particularly sour looking Park Ranger watched me each time I came around to make sure I didn't run over any little children or exceed the speed limit.
I was fuming as I proceeded to spend the next hour and a half doing very slow laps.  Why should I be forced to go so slowly?  The road had been divided into two lanes, one for cyclists and one for everyone else.  I could not complete a single lap without having some oblivious Yuppie cross in front of me without looking, thus forcing me to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him.  I had to slam on the brakes numerous times for kids weaving back and forth on their bicycles as well as several renegade dogs that were running about aimlessly.  Interestingly enough there were no warning signs painted on the road telling the walkers that violations of the bicycle lane would result in fines and imprisonment.  I wonder why?
None of this has anything to do with what I actually want to write about today.  I only describe my rage at the destruction of a perfectly good bicycle riding venue and the continued persecution of cyclists in a vain attempt to relieve some of my pique.  What really made me angry was what I heard coming from the mouth of a Yuppie mother as she talked to her Yuppie child at a playground I was passing during my many slow laps.  Her child had some sort of toy and was playing with it.  Another child, unrelated and I believe unknown to the first child, came up and demanded to be able to play with the toy.  The mother witnessed the assault and immediately ordered her child to "share" his toy.  I was aghast.  I was outraged.  I wanted to go over to that Yuppie mother and smack her down for teaching communism to her child.  I could not believe what I had heard.  It was child abuse.  I almost made me sick.  I finished up that lap and headed for home.
The ridiculous and harmful practice of sharing is endemic in modern parenting models.  It seems as if one thing all parents agree upon is the importance of teaching their children to share.  I have known children in many families who have been indoctrinated into the teachings of Marx and Lenin by their parents who continually order them to share their toys with their siblings and friends.  The Socialist Democracy of Amerika may have won the cold war against communism but we have certainly lost the family war against it.  It seems as if every family in this envy filled land is communistic in nature.  What hope for the future can we have when parents destroy the concept of private property at such a tender age?  None, I suspect.
Let me make it clear.  I believe generosity is a good thing.  I would teach my children to be generous if I had any.  But being generous with my own personal property and being told that I have to share my property because I do not have the right to control how it is used are two different matters entirely.  When I own a piece of property I have the right to do with it what I please.  If I choose to share a portion of it with someone that is my business.  But I always retain the right of ownership.  Sharing, however, is built upon the Marxist concept of common ownership.  Even though the Yuppie child had been given his toy by his Yuppie parents, his parents informed him that a total stranger had the right to come up to him and demand the right to use it.  If he didn't want to share his toy he was told he was selfish and being a bad boy.  What is that if not communism?  What is that if not sheer stupidity?  What does that instruction accomplish but brainwashing young children in the doctrines of socialism?
If you love your children teach them the right of private property.  When you give them a gift tell them it is theirs to do with what they please.  Encourage them to be generous and allow friends to play with them and their toys but never, ever tell a child that what is his is not his and that he is morally bound to share it with others.  Never let a child come to believe that others have a moral claim on what belongs to him. That is communism pure and simple.  Teaching your children to be communists will destroy their economic minds forever.  Teaching children to share will open them up to the practice of government worship as they come to be indoctrinated by government school teachers that government is the entity that is best involved in the process of sharing with others.  They, like everyone else, will soon come to believe that taxing the top 49% of the income population is a good thing to do.  After all, should the rich not be required to share their toys with the rest of us?

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Emily Badger Is A Socialist Race-Baiter

Emily Badger is a reporter for Wonkblog covering urban policy.  Or at least that is what her byline says about her.  I had never heard of her prior to reading an article in the newspaper yesterday that she wrote.  In addition to being a reporter for Wonkblog, Emily is also a socialist and a hater of the free market.  She also worships the government and believes in theft by majority vote.  She is also a race-baiter.   How do I know all of this?  Because of what she wrote yesterday.  Let me tell you all about it.
The title of her piece was "How the rise of gated spaces perpetuates racial tension."  As you have probably already guessed, she was motivated to write by what happened in McKinney, Texas the other day.  For those of you who are not aware, a private community swimming pool was overrun by a group of  teenagers who were primarily black and who were responding to a social media website which declared some rap musicians were giving a free performance at the pool that evening.  They believed that all were invited.  In reality a group of folks who were members of the local homeowners associated had reserved their pool for a special function that evening.  The private pool is in an upper class portion of McKinney that is primarily populated by white folks.  When all of the black kids showed up and started jumping over the fence to gain access to the swimming pool the police were called.  Cops, being what they are, arrived on site and immediately overreacted to the situation.  Rather than calmly explaining to these teenagers that they were trespassing on private property, they began to shove the kids around, smacking them to the ground and one cop even pulled his gun and threatened to shoot some of the unarmed kids as he delivered a profanity laced tirade.  That, of course, is business as usual for the paramilitary forces that operate in this militaristic land these days.
Reaction has been predictable.  Some folks have praised the cops because the kids were somehow deemed to be a threat to the health and safety of the people in the pool area.  Others see nothing but racism and declare this situation to be another Ferguson or Baltimore.  Reasonable people like myself see the situation more clearly.  We realize that the McKinney situation was nothing more than a bunch of teenagers doing what teenagers often do (being stupid) and the overly aggressive response of the local police force to their act of trespassing is consistent with what cops do these days as well.  All of that, however, has nothing to do with the point of today's blog post.  Let's get back to Emily's take on the McKinney event.
"Signs, signs, everywhere are signs....do this, don't do that, can't you read the signs?"  Recognize that hippie anthem from the 1960s?  I can't remember who performed it but Emily has embraced the credo evident in that song.  Emily is a socialist and she does not believe in private property.  As a socialist who does not believe in private property it is impossible for her to conceive of a situation in which someone might commit a tort against another person by trespassing on that person's property.  In Emily's world everyone owns everything and there is no such thing as trespassing.  The truly evil people in her world are those who make a claim of personal ownership over a piece of property and then follow that up with the outrageous act of fencing off their property so that others might not enter.  According to Emily that "perpetuates racial tension," whatever that is.
But don't take my word for it.  Let me tell you a bit about what Emily had to say.  She wrote, "The incident exposes the unspoken logic of gated resources:  They are meant to give residents control over who's in the community that can use communal goods.  Private community swimming pools do a good job at this....McKinney has three public swimming pools but none of them are in this part of town....This exact same phenomenon has surfaced in many forms well beyond swimming pools.  Americans have ... withdrawn from many of the public spaces and shared resources that were prominent in communities decades ago....There, though, as with so many of these stories lately, much more -- the way we design communities and divide their resources with race and class quietly in mind -- is implicated too."  Wow, besides being terribly written and difficult to understand, she makes some pretty audacious economic claims.  Let's break it down.
As a socialist Emily simply presupposes that private property is evil.  How else can I explain the fact that she simply states that, "...the unspoken logic of gated resources:  They are meant to give residents control over who's in the community that can use communal goods."  She writes that as if it is a bad thing.  And to her, it is.  She believes that everyone owns everything, despite the fact that the people who paid for the construction of the swimming pool did so with their own money and the pool was built on their own land.  According to Emily those black teenagers had just as much a right to use the private pool as the people who built it, maintain it and pay for all of its expenses.  In an amazingly Orwellian twist, their refusal to accept the trespassing black kids onto their property is considered to be an act of racism on their part. 
The rich folks who live in the part of McKinney that Emily so despises pay much more in property taxes than the folks who live in the poorer parts of town.  As Emily acknowledged, there are three other public pools in McKinney that those black teenagers could have gone to for a party or to swim.  Indeed, if it was calculated on a percentage basis it would be discovered that the rich folks who gated off their private pool pay a disproportionate share of the expenses associated with those three public pools.  Do they receive any praise for their generosity?  Does anyone thank them for their support?  Does anyone shake their hand on the street and tell them how grateful they are for their service?  Of course not.  Socialists never praise anyone.  They simply take, take and then demand some more to take.
Emily grieves over the fact that "Americans have withdrawn from many of the public spaces and shared resources that were prominent in communities decades ago."  Why does this bother Emily so?  There are three other public pools in McKinney, all of which are largely financed by the rich folks who have withdrawn from them.  Why does it bother Emily that some of those rich folks covenanted together to build their own pool for their exclusive use?  What is so terrible about that?  I think we all know the answer to that question.  Like a good socialist Emily is shot through with covetousness and envy.  When she sees others who have things that she does not have she wants the government to take it away from them and give it to her. She couches her argument in terms of social justice, community solidarity and, of course, racism, but it all comes down to the same thing...she can't stand it when others have things she does not have and she will use the coercive power of the state to punish those who are wealthier than her simply because they are wealthier than her.
The last sentence in the quotation above is classic socialism.  She writes, "the way we design communities and divide their resources with race and class quietly in mind...is implicated too."  I have a couple of questions for Emily.  Who is "we?"  You claim that there is some elite group of intellectuals who work for the government who make decisions about how to divide up the pie.  You also claim that their decisions about how to divide up the pie are based upon racism.  Please tell me who these people are.  I really want to know who the "we" are.  Where did they come from? When and where do they meet?  In addition, Emily, where do these resources you speak about come from?  Do they just magically appear?  Do they come from the government?  Why are you unwilling to admit that you have replaced the private property of other people with the term "resources?"  Furthermore, what gives you the right to divide up the private property....umm...I mean "resources" which belong to other people?  Why is what you are calling for nothing more than theft?  Why are you nothing more than a tyrannical thief? Why should you not be in prison?
I believe many, if not most, of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika share Emily's viewpoint.  We are, after all, a socialist democracy.  In a socialist democracy there is no such thing as private property, all there is are anonymous resources that magically appear from thin air.  In a socialist democracy the envy filled 51% vote for rulers who make laws that confiscate the property of the higher earning 49% and presto-chango, we have "resources" to divide up among ourselves.  That is the essence of democracy and most people, at least 51% of them anyway, love it that way.  In Emily's socialistic utopia of McKinney those evil rich people would not be permitted to build a swimming pool for their exclusive use.  Those evil rich people would not be allowed to throw a party on their property without first inviting all of the people in the world who make less than them to attend.  And when those people show up, guess who will be expected to pay the catering bill?  

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Amerika Is A Post-Christian Society

Several years ago I admitted, under duress, that I am a regular reader of Ask Amy.  You can find my true confession here.  As I alleged at the time, I do not read Amy Dickinson's column because I consider her to be a moral luminary. From what I can tell she is a God-hating pagan just like everyone else.  But even God-hating pagans have some measure of common grace given to them and they occasionally have something worthwhile to say.  The primary reason I read her column is for a daily laugh.  The people who write to her are horrific losers who have messed up their lives because of one stupid decision after another.  Most of them tell tales of drunken sex, illegitimate children, lazy husbands/boyfriends/children who sponge off the responsible people and, recently, tales of woe by homosexuals.
Last week a heterophobe (for those unfamiliar with the term, a heterophobe is someone with a mental illness that causes him or her to have a phobic reaction to heterosexuals) wrote to Amy about a problem in his life.  Here, in part, is what he wrote, "I am 21 years old and have been openly gay since high school.  I have been dating a 27 - year old man whom I love with all my heart....He is a closeted bi-sexual.  I know he cares about me and loves me with all his heart but we are constantly arguing because he has to keep me a secret....He says he might want kids or a wife in the future but that he is very happy with me and loves me....I honestly do not know what to do anymore I understand being scared and being in the closet.  He has extremely religious and ignorant parents..." 
If you managed to get through that without vomiting over your keyboard, good for you.  The moral depravity displayed by this man, as well as his overall extreme sissy-ness, makes that paragraph difficult to read.  Nevertheless, I put it here in order to give you a bit of the context of his letter.  I am only interested in the last phrase I have quoted above.  This God-hater makes the preposterous claim that simply because someone is a Christian he is also ignorant.  He presents no argument for his position.  He presents no examples of his position.  He simply presupposes that he is correct and then goes on to defame an entire class of people simply because the members of that class believe his behavior to be sinful.  Now who is really behaving like an ignoramus?
I was hoping Amy might cut him down a bit and rebuke him for his stupid characterization of Christians as ignorant people.  She did not.  Her advice was short and bitter.  She wrote, "Being on the down-low is death to your self esteem.  I hope you find someone who will love you out in the open, and exactly as you are."  I wonder if she would have written that if the man was a pedophile?  I wonder if she would have written that if the man was into bestiality?  Alas, we shall never know.  What we do know is that a thoroughly brain-washed Amy has given in to the argument that all homosexuals have dangerously fragile self-esteems that need constant affirmation from the rest of us.  She dutifully provides the affirmation she believes this man needs.  Allow me to provide something else.
Repent of your homosexuality before it is too late.  You are doomed to the Lake of Fire if you do not repent.  That having been said, I have a bit more to say as well.  Actually, I have two questions for this intellectual homosexual who believes me to be an ignorant fool.  Are you aware that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all condemn homosexuality and call for capital punishment of those who practice it?  How are you able to dismiss millions of adherents of three religions that have existed for thousands of years with the pejorative "ignorant" label without so much as an argument in support of your position?  You do not have to answer those questions because I already know the answer.
You can dismiss Christians as ignorant for no better reason than the fact that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a post-Christian society.  There are those who argue that the founding fathers of the United States were Christians and that they founded a Christian country.  I am not one who believes in that doctrine.  However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Christian doctrine and practice clearly was the most influential school of ethical thought in creating the foundational moral principles of the United States. But that was a long time ago.  In my generation many things have changed.  Nothing illustrates the shift of emphasis from what was known as the Judeo-Christian ethic to a secular, God of the Bible hating, government loving socialism than the homosexual movement.   Today homosexuals can dismiss Christians as ignorant fools because they have won the cultural war and established themselves as normative in our society.  Those who hold to cherished and ancient doctrines have no place in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika anymore, if we ever did.  In the name of kindness and inclusion the homosexuals have rudely excluded Christians from the public square.
All calls for tolerance, as a man named Rusdoony once wrote, are merely political games used to transfer power from one group to the other.  Once those in power have been subverted by those calling for tolerance, a new intolerance is immediately imposed upon the prior group.  We are at that point today.  Christian ethics have been subverted by the rule of God-hating men.  Now that the God-hating men are in power there is no place for tolerance of the Christian position.  The irony of that fact somehow always seems to be lost upon the homosexuals.  Why am I not surprised?

Monday, June 8, 2015

You Can Taser Him, But Don't Give Him A Cigarette

New reports about police brutality are filtering in every day.  All across the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the para-military forces most people refer to as the police are perpetuating violence against the citizens of this terrified country.  The most recent encounter is seen in a seven minute video of cops in Texas chasing around a bunch of unarmed black teenagers with tasers and drawn handguns outside a swimming pool.  Apparently the teenagers committed the crime of responding to a social media ad which announced that some rapper was going to be giving a concert at the normally private swimming pool and all were invited to attend for free.  When the black teenagers showed up the cops were called and they initiated their unique program of crowd control.
Denver ranks high on the list of cities with out of control para-military forces prowling the streets in search of the enemy.  Tens of millions of dollars have been coughed up by Denver taxpayers over the past couple of years as one court case after another has found the Denver cops and Sheriffs department guilty of brutality.  Of course, none of the offending officers has ever been fired, much less even disciplined for their actions, at least until last week.  What happened last week was so over the top, so excessive, so beyond reason, so violent and so wrong that even the Denver Sheriffs department had to do something about it.
As the Denver Post reported last week, "One Denver Sheriff Department captain has been suspended for two days and another captain has been busted down a rank after the two were involved in giving an inmate a..."  You would expect the phrase to follow in the quotation I just cut off to be something like "a serious beating" or "a first class whupping," but that is not the case.  But before I get to what the officers did to the poor, defenseless citizen, allow me to describe the serious nature of their punishment.
According to the article, "Anthony Gettler, who was a captain serving in a major's position when the incident occurred, was punished for carelessness in performing his duties and failure to observe department regulations....Wayne Jochem, who was a captain the time, was demoted to sergeant, for neglect of duty and failure to observe department regulations.  A reduction in rank is significant because it means a loss of income and it can impact retirement income."   So there you have it.  Those two men were dealt with quickly and harshly.  They are both losing income.  One of them is going to take a serious hit to his future income as well.  The report of their abusive behavior was immediately revealed to the press and no attempt was made to cover or whitewash what they had done.  So what exactly did they do to merit such severe sanctions?  They offered an inmate a cigarette.
Once again, according to the article, "The officers landed themselves in trouble after trying to calm a mentally ill inmate during a cell extraction -- a situation that previously had gotten the department in trouble after taking a violent turn.  In fact, cell extractions were addressed in a recent consultant's report on failure within the department.  The consultants said deputies needed to use tactics to de-escalate the situations rather than rely on force."   So let me get this straight.  In past cases when an inmate would put up a fuss while being transferred from one cell to another the cops would taser him, sit on his chest, beat him about the head and, in more than one case, kill the poor soul.  A highly compensated consultant advised the deputies to use means other than violence to attempt to console these incorrigibles when making cell transfers.  Applying that advice to their situation the two deputies in question offered the inmate a cigarette, which apparently worked and solved the problem, prior to switching him to another cell.  Horror of horrors.  This will not do.  You can beat a prisoner.  You can taser a prisoner.  You can even kill a prisoner.  But you must never, never, never give a prisoner a cigarette!