THE END IS NEAR!

As I write this, the clock moves onward and soon the end will come. The end of the second, the minute, the hour, the day. the week, the YEAR A.D. 2011. Wait a minute -- it already happened, a few hours to the east.

Bummer.

So 2012 is upon us. A Presidential election year, and according to the ancient Mayan calendar the world will end next December, after the American people choose a new President. Coincidence? All events are related somehow, tied together by that mysterious elementary particle of the universe, the elusive foo boson.

I ran for Congress in 2000, a triad of leap years ago, as a Republican primary candidate in the 14th District. Then I tried it again in 2010, same party, in the 13th District. Now its the 16th District, and once more it is Leap Year, but my cheering section has disassembled itself, the deadline for filing in the primary is long past, and beside all that, I have no wish to be abused by the Republican party again.

Oh, my ideals have not changed. My positions have become clearer. The results of policies I decried have become even more deadly to the welfare of my country. I fear, however, that America has a secret death wish.

The primary season opened with multiple challengers jockeying for anointment by the press and pundits as the challenger to the man seen as the destroyer of all that is good about America. They are wrong, though, the people of America have themselves presided over the destruction of their nation.

As one who is under oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I find myself turning to the policies, written so long ago, which undergird that document; to the Bible, which ordains that all should be treated equally, that fraud and all that contributes to fraud is detestable, and that life is precious and must be protected and enhanced with all the power at our disposal. If we simply would do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God, His blessings will fall upon us like the springtime rain.

I look for one who would uphold those things, but such a person faces numerous enemies who would serve their own interests rather than the good of the Republic. I have had enough of the posturing of those who worship Democracy and hate the ordinances of God. Good riddance to the Year 2011.

THE END IS NEAR!

On Hornets and Hackers...

It was when I was a newly feathered teenager that we one day discovered in the pine trees on our extra side lot a big hornet nest. Being exceptionally bright cookies, my brothers and I decided that it would be bad medicine to disturb that paper metropolis from up close. Being exceptionally mischievous malingerers, we also craved the excitement of demolition. Besides, everyone knows hornets are evil; harassing them would be a good deed. The solution -- we stood back about 50 feet away and shot into the nest with our BB guns.

Did you know that hornets can detect the direction and angle of fire of projectiles at significant distances from their source? We learned something new that day; a victim will only be a victim until he discovers a way to turn the tables on his tormentor.

On Christmas Eve the Internet terrorist organization known as "Anonymous" reportedly broke into the database of Stratfor Global Intelligence, a company that does news analysis for a world-wide client base. The terrorists stole subscriber usernames and passwords, gained access to their credit card accounts, and ran up charges by donating money to charitable organizations.

Reading the comments generated on a number of websites and blogs, it is obvious that there are large numbers of people who are morally degenerate enough to think that Robin Hood tactics are a means of doing good. That should have been obvious from the support that the Occupy Movement has had, even from people who otherwise have a reputation as good citizens. The fact that even political leaders seem to feel that evil deeds will solve the Nation's problems ought to serve as warning that we are headed for catastrophic anarchy, and the eventual loss of cherished freedoms.

I have a number of friends, many now retired, who have worked in the IT field since the 1960's (some even longer) who contemptuously call such troublemakers "script kiddies". They spent a good part of their careers working to foil people who either as a game, or as part of organized espionage, attempted to circumvent security features and access data which was not intended for public exposure. They are well aware that most security breeches are caused by laxity on the part of an IT department which has not considered itself a target for one reason or another. They are also quite confident that as such exploits grow in number, there will be retaliatory measures taken.

"Anonymous", "Occupy Whatever", and other such self-absorbed dreamers need to understand that their mischief to this point has been directed at groups and organizations which have not attempted retaliation. The clients of Stratfor, however, are a mixed bag of corporate and governmental entities, and includes private contractors for security concerns. One of the reasons for attacking that site was that Stratfor was somehow considered "evil", merely on the basis of who they accepted as clientele. One of the reasons for shooting BBs at the hornets' nest was that they could possibly sting people.

In all the wide world there probably are well trained and genuinely evil people who patronize think tanks like Stratfor. That should give the terrorists pause. Just as they are able to use their technological skill to break in, steal information, and use it to create havoc, their victims are also technologically capable, and will eventually be able to track down their tormentors.

At that point, the Internet terrorists had better hope that their victims are much less evil than they originally believed. Back in the bad old days, if you attacked a robber baron and stole his money or embarrassed him, he might not only come after you to kill you, but he might also strike at those near and dear to you. It is said that "Anonymous" tried to shake down a Mexican drug gang, and was warned that the consequences would be dire. They should not sleep too comfortably in the misapprehension that their victims on Wall Street and in other high places around the world are less serious about revenge than the drug lords who have no compunction about hanging their tormentors on wires from bridges, or removing body parts to send a message. Hornets do not like to have their nests disturbed.

Sigh. Time Flies.

It is amazing the difference 10 years can make. I wonder what it will be like 10 years from now...

Christmas 2011

Christmas 2011 (the Western version) has come and is slipping past as I write this. I enjoy the Christmas story, and am thankful that God was willing to bless me -- and all other people -- with the gift of Himself as our Savior, and that He would choose to do so in precisely the manner in which He did it. For years now, however, the Christmas season has made me somewhat uneasy. It has been a bit of a fretful time; a time that produces a sort of melancholy in me, even to the point of depression.

Within the Christmas story is the account of the journey of the wise men from the east, who carried gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Jesus. Around this story has grown up the custom of gift-giving, which for most of the world, is the total meaning of Christmas. This custom of exchanging gifts at the celebration of the nativity is nowhere commanded in the Scriptures. Throughout most of Western history it seems to have been a relatively low-key activity, and does not appear in early Church history as a significant factor. It is even suspected by some groups of believers to be an assimilation of a pagan activity.

Then there are always those each year who cry out against the "commercialization" of Christmas, and there are those for whom the "commercialization" of Christmas is the difference between having food on the table and going hungry. Additionally, the bizarre shenanigans of shoppers willing to camp out for "Black Friday" sales, or to fight one another or riot over some particular piece of merchandise, always causes saner citizens to doubt whether Christmas gift-giving is worth the demeaning of the memorial.

To counter that, and because the gift-giving by the wise men has never seemed to be sufficient reason for some people to participate, the rationale has been trotted forth that the giving of gifts is appropriate because it mirrors the very activity of The Eternal in giving Himself. I am persuaded that giving gifts under such reasoning more truly memorializes Christmas, but I fear that in actual practice, it is usually quite banal and trivializes what was done.

We glibly sing the carols and fail to consider the depth of the words; "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. " Within that message is an announcement of more than just the birth of a child. It is the flat statement that a pressing need was met, and that disaster had been averted.

Christmas is actually the acknowledgment of that dreaded idea of Original Sin and the Just Wrath of God. Those who celebrate Christmas admit by doing so, whether willingly or unwillingly, that they have sinned, come short of the Glory of God, and are worthy of spending all of Eternity with that enemy of God, the Devil himself. Had Jesus not been given to us, and had He not subsequently paid the ransom for us on the cross, our future would have been one of eternal torment.

Christmas. The Savior is born. Peace is extended to mankind as a gift from God. It is no mystery that non-Christians should want to take Christ out of Christmas, since His presence, even as a babe in a manger, is a reminder of the presence of sin in our lives, and the price we could not ourselves pay to redeem the glory lost by Adam.

Thus the quandary. The gift that was given by God was a gift that was essential for meeting a need. We do not celebrate Christmas because God in some moment of merriment decided to visit His creation with His presence. We celebrate Christmas because He gave the gift of Eternal Life, the escape from Hell -- "peace, good will toward men."

I suppose what has always bothered me about the Christmas season is that great triviality with which it is treated, and the accompanying triviality in the gift-giving which is supposed to commemorate the Gift of God. For this year, the celebration of the Day is about at an end. It has come and gone. I have participated in the triviality, but will I do better in the future?

Would it not be more appropriate for me to consider my great need that was met, and look about for needs that others have that could be met by me? Rather than a box of candy, or a toy, or even the consideration of a gift for someone else who might be equally well off, would not the true sense of what God did for me be better expressed if, as a gift, I gave something that would meet the needs of a person who was totally unable to reciprocate?

Does Christmas come just once a year for me? He went from the manger to the cross, and the gift took him a lifetime to give. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Issue 2

I was asked to put together a brief explaining the reason for Issue 2. Issue 2 is a referendum on Ohio Senate Bill 5. SB 5 changed the Ohio Revised Code with regard to what was and was not permitted in bargaining between public employers (AKA “taxpayers”) and public employees. A “YES” vote is a vote to keep the changes. A “NO” vote is a vote to reject the changes.

SB 5 has been opposed by the unions. There are a number of important reasons for their opposition. New section 4113.80 prohibits discrimination in laying off employees. Section 4117.80 was changed to remove from collective bargaining certain items. New section 4117.081, which applies only to public schools, prohibits public schools from bargaining with unions over certain workplace rules, fixes at 85% the maximum amount the public might be required to pay for public school employee health care insurance premiums, and specifically exempts personal safety equipment from the prohibition. Section 4117.09 was changed to prohibit requiring non-union public employees to pay union dues, or to require union membership. Section 4117.26 was added to define public employee compensation as anything of value given to the employee in exchange for service.

While most private employees would see these changes as making public employee pay and benefits conform to the “real world”, the requirements that teachers agree individually in writing to pay union dues is rightly viewed as a major attack on union power. The unions have resorted to lies about what the bill contains, and many of the people who say they are opposed have simply been mislead or are otherwise ill-informed. Few of the opponents of Issue 2 will flatly admit that it challenges the feathering of their own nests.

The Official Argument and Explanation for Issue 2 (one page) can be found on the Ohio Secretary of State’s website. A synopsis of the critical changes follows; text in red has been added to (underlined) or deleted from (struck through) the existing ORC.



Sec. 4113.80. (A) As used in this section, "public employer" means the state or any agency or instrumentality of the state, and any municipal corporation, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision or any agency or instrumentality of a municipal corporation, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision.
    (B) "Age," "ancestry," "color," "disability," "military status," "national origin," "race," "religion," and "sex" have the same meanings and shall be construed in the same manner as in Chapter 4112. of the Revised Code.
    (C) When determining whether to lay off an employee as part of a reduction in force, a public employer shall not consider the race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of the employee in violation of Chapter 4112. of the Revised Code or any applicable federal law.

Sec. 4117.08. (A) All matters pertaining to wages, hours, or and terms and other conditions of employment and the continuation, modification, or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement are subject to collective bargaining between the public employer and the exclusive representative, except as otherwise specified in this section and division (E) of section 4117.03 4117.081 of the Revised Code. Any existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement that was modified, renewed, or extended from a prior collective bargaining agreement that does not concern wages, hours, and terms and conditions shall not be a mandatory subject of collective bargaining and shall not be subject to any impasse procedure without the mutual agreement of both the public employer and exclusive representative. The inclusion of a provision in a previous collective bargaining agreement shall not be used as a basis for the provision being determined to concern wages, hours, and terms and conditions.
    (B) The following subjects are not appropriate subjects for collective bargaining:
    (1) The conduct and grading of civil service examinations, the rating of candidates, the establishment of eligible lists from the examinations, and the original appointments from the eligible lists are not appropriate subjects for collective bargaining;
    (2) Health care benefits, except that, subject to division (E) of this section, the amount of the cost of those benefits for which a public employer and the public employees of the public employer pays is an appropriate subject of collective bargaining;
    (3) The payment of a contribution by a public employer to the public employees retirement system, the Ohio police and fire pension fund, the state teachers retirement system, the state highway patrol retirement system, or the school employees retirement system on behalf of an employee, contributor, or teacher, as applicable, that the employee, contributor, or teacher otherwise is required to pay;
    (4) The privatization of a public employer's services or contracting out of the public employer's work;
    (5) The number of employees required to be on duty or employed in any department, division, or facility of a public employer.
    (C) Unless a public employer specifically agrees otherwise in an express written provision of a collective bargaining agreement, nothing in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code impairs the right and responsibility of each public employer to:
    (1) Determine matters of inherent managerial policy which include, but are not limited to areas of discretion or policy such as the functions and programs of the public employer, standards of services, its overall budget, utilization of technology, and organizational structure;
    (2) Direct, supervise, evaluate, or hire employees;
    (3) Maintain and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations;
    (4) Determine the overall methods, process, means, or personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted;
    (5) Suspend, discipline, demote, or discharge for just cause, or lay off, transfer, assign, schedule, promote, or retain employees;
    (6) Determine the adequacy of the work force;
    (7) Determine the overall mission of the employer as a unit of government;
    (8) Effectively manage the work force;
    (9) Take actions to carry out the mission of the public employer as a governmental unit Hire, discharge, transfer, suspend, or discipline employees;
    (2) Determine the number of persons required to be employed or laid off;
    (3) Determine the qualifications of employees;
    (4) Determine the starting and quitting time and the number of hours to be worked by its employees;
    (5) Make any and all reasonable rules and regulations;
    (6) Determine the work assignments of its employees;
    (7) Determine the basis for selection, retention, and promotion of employees;
    (8) Determine the type of equipment used and the sequence of work processes, except as provided in division (F) of this section;
    (9) Determine the making of technological alterations by revising either process or equipment or both, except as provided in division (F) of this section;
    (10) Determine work standards and the quality and quantity of work to be produced;
    (11) Select and locate buildings and other facilities;
    (12) Establish, expand, transfer, or consolidate work processes and facilities;
    (13) Transfer or subcontract work;
    (14) Consolidate, merge, or otherwise transfer any or all of its facilities, property processes, or work with or to any other municipal corporation or entity or effect or change in any respect the legal status, management, or responsibility of such property, facilities, processes, or work;
    (15) Terminate or eliminate all or any part of its work or facilities.
    The employer is not required to bargain on subjects reserved to the management and direction of the governmental unit except as affect wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment, and the continuation, modification, or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement. A public employee or exclusive representative may raise a legitimate complaint or file a grievance based only on the violation of the express written provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.
    (D) During negotiations between a public employer and an exclusive representative, the parties shall consider, for purposes of determining the ability of the public employer to pay for any terms agreed to during collective bargaining, only the financial status of the public employer at the time period surrounding the negotiations. When determining whether the employer can pay for those terms, the parties shall consider the employer's inability to pay. The parties shall not consider either of the following when determining the ability of the public employer to pay for those terms:
    (1) Any potential future increase in the income of the public employer that would only be possible by the employer raising revenue, including, but not limited to, passing a levy or a bond issue;
    (2) The employer's ability to sell assets.
    (E) The provision of health care benefits for which the employer is required to pay more than eighty-five per cent of the cost is not an appropriate subject for collective bargaining. No public employer shall agree to a provision that requires the public employer to pay more than eighty-five per cent of the cost paid for health care benefits.
    (F) Notwithstanding division (C) of this section, equipment issues directly related to personal safety are subject to collective bargaining.

Sec. 4117.081. (A) This section applies only to school districts, educational service centers, certain conversion community schools established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, and STEM schools established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code.
    (B) No public employer to which this section applies shall enter into a collective bargaining agreement on or after the effective date of this section that does any of the following:
    (1) Requires the public employer to employ a minimum number of total personnel or any category of personnel;
    (2) Restricts the authority of the public employer or a district or service center superintendent to assign personnel to school buildings or restricts the authority of a building principal to designate the responsibilities and workloads of personnel assigned to the building;
    (3) Establishes a maximum number of students who may be assigned to a classroom or teacher;
    (4) Prohibits the public employer from making reductions in teachers or nonteaching employees for any applicable reason specified in division (B) of section 124.321 or section 3319.17 or 3319.172 of the Revised Code or in a policy adopted under section 3319.171 of the Revised Code;
    (5) Restricts the authority of the public employer, when making personnel reductions, to determine the order of layoffs;
    (6) Restricts the authority of the public employer to acquire noneducational services from another public or private entity through competitive bidding;
    (7) Restricts the authority of the public employer to acquire any products, programs, or services pursuant to section 3313.841, 3313.842, 3313.843, or 3313.845 of the Revised Code;
    (8) Otherwise relinquishes, impairs, or restricts the managerial rights and responsibilities of the public employer described in division (C) of section 4117.08 of the Revised Code.
    (C)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(2) of this section, each collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this section between a public employer to which this section applies and its employees shall comply with all applicable state or local laws or ordinances regarding wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of public employees.
    (2) A collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this section may include a provision that conflicts with an applicable law or ordinance, if the provision establishes benefits that are less than the benefits conferred by the law or ordinance and division (A) of section 4117.10 of the Revised Code does not require that the law or ordinance prevail over the conflicting provision. Any provision of the agreement that conflicts with an applicable law or ordinance and does not meet these requirements shall be void.
    (D) Notwithstanding division (A)(5) of section 4117.11 of the Revised Code, a public employer to which this section applies is not required to, and may refuse to, collectively bargain on the continuation, modification, or termination of a provision of an existing collective bargaining agreement.

Sec. 4117.09. (A) The parties to any collective bargaining agreement shall reduce the agreement to writing and both execute it.
    (B) The agreement shall contain a provision that:
    (1) Provides for a grievance procedure which may culminate with final and binding arbitration of unresolved grievances, and that are based on the disputed interpretations of the express written provisions of the agreements, and which is valid and enforceable under its terms when entered into in accordance with this chapter. No publication thereof is required to make it effective. A party to the agreement may bring suits for violation of agreements or the enforcement of an award by an arbitrator in the court of common pleas of any county wherein a party resides or transacts business.
    (2) Authorizes the public employer to deduct the periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments of members of the exclusive representative upon presentation of a written deduction authorization by the employee so long as the employee organization has filed and maintained its financial report outlining the organization's expenditures.
    (C) The No agreement may contain a provision that requires as a condition of employment, on or after a mutually agreed upon probationary period or sixty days following the beginning of employment, whichever is less, or the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement, whichever is later, that the employees in the unit who are not members of the employee organization pay to the employee organization a fair share fee. The arrangement does not require any employee to become a member of the employee organization, nor shall fair share fees exceed dues paid by members of the employee organization who are in the same bargaining unit. Any public employee organization representing public employees pursuant to this chapter shall prescribe an internal procedure to determine a rebate, if any, for nonmembers which conforms to federal law, provided a nonmember makes a timely demand on the employee organization. Absent arbitrary and capricious action, such determination is conclusive on the parties except that a challenge to the determination may be filed with the state employment relations board within thirty days of the determination date specifying the arbitrary or capricious nature of the determination and the board shall review the rebate determination and decide whether it was arbitrary or capricious. The deduction of a fair share fee by the public employer from the payroll check of the employee and its payment to the employee organization is automatic and does not require the written authorization of the employee. The internal rebate procedure shall provide for a rebate of expenditures in support of partisan politics or ideological causes not germaine to the work of employee organizations in the realm of collective bargaining. Any public employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets or teachings of a bona fide religion or religious body which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization and which is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code shall not be required to join or financially support any employee organization as a condition of employment. Upon submission of proper proof of religious conviction to the board, the board shall declare the employee exempt from becoming a member of or financially supporting an employee organization. The employee shall be required, in lieu of the fair share fee, to pay an amount of money equal to the fair share fee to a nonreligious charitable fund exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code mutually agreed upon by the employee and the representative of the employee organization to which the employee would otherwise be required to pay the fair share fee. The employee shall furnish to the employee organization written receipts evidencing such payment, and failure to make the payment or furnish the receipts shall subject the employee to the same sanctions as would nonpayment of dues under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
    No public employer shall agree to a provision requiring that a public employee become a member of an employee organization as a condition for securing or retaining employment. Any agreement that purports to require that employees join any exclusive representative is void and unenforceable.
    No public employer shall agree to a provision that provides for the payroll deduction for any contributions to a political action committee using any other method than the method prescribed in sections 3517.082, 3517.09, and 3599.031 of the Revised Code.
    (D) As used in this division, "teacher" means any employee of a school district certified to teach in the public schools of this state.
    The agreement may contain a provision that provides for a peer review plan under which teachers in a bargaining unit or representatives of an employee organization representing teachers may, for other teachers of the same bargaining unit or teachers whom the employee organization represents, participate in assisting, instructing, reviewing, evaluating, or appraising and make recommendations or participate in decisions with respect to the retention, discharge, renewal, or nonrenewal of, the teachers covered by a peer review plan.
    The participation of teachers or their employee organization representative in a peer review plan permitted under this division shall not be construed as an unfair labor practice under this chapter or as a violation of any other provision of law or rule adopted pursuant thereto.
    (E) No agreement shall contain an expiration date that is later than three years from the date of execution. The parties may extend any agreement, but the extensions do not affect the expiration date of the original agreement.
    (F) No public employer shall agree to a provision that requires the public employer, when a reduction in force is necessary, to use an employee's length of service as the only factor to determine whether to lay off the employee.


Sec. 4117.26. (A) As used in this section, "compensation" means wages, salary, and other earnings paid to a public employee by reason of employment. "Compensation" includes all of the following that are provided by a public employer to a public employee:
    (1) Allowances for food or drink;
    (2) Allowances or stipends for clothing;
    (3) Compensation in addition to base salary for labor performed or services rendered by the public employee, including any additional compensation paid for attending an event that occurs outside the public employee's normal work schedule;
    (4) Payments for length of service;
    (5) Allowances for dry cleaning services;
    (6) Insurance coverage, including health insurance, vision insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, or life insurance;
    (7) Anything of value given to a public employee by a public employer for labor performed or services rendered by the public employee that is not generally offered to any of the public employer's employees that are not subject to a collective bargaining agreement, unless they are de minimis.

Scraping the Bottom

In a lot of ways, Facebook is a fiasco. Certainly it allows contact between large groups of people, and it allows you to find long-lost acquaintances, often by chaining to other acquaintances. Of course, there are some acquaintances you would rather forget, but that is a slightly different problem ...

I need to stay more up to date via blogging. The advantage over Facebook notes is that there is less distraction from the trivia that oozes to the surface of Facebook on a constant basis. The disadvantage is missing out on the trivia. Thus, at times a disadvantage is an advantage in disguise. Next I suppose I will discuss the genius aspects of an oxymoron.

The garden is producing. Saturday I picked a pile of cucumbers -- note that I just skipped the opportunity for onomatopoetic excess -- and several tender little zucchinis. The latter I sliced into 1/2" wafers and froze on a cookie sheet, and then stored them in a baggie. Today I treated another threesome the same way.

I tried some of the bok choy a week or so ago and was disappointed, because it has failed to head the way the picture on the seed package showed. In fact, one of the plants began to bolt, so I yanked it and whacked off the top portion. On a whim, I brought the remainder into the house, not sure what I would do with it. This evening I chopped it into chunks and boiled some of it. With butter and salt and pepper it was actually acceptable.

The remainder has been cleaned and is currently in a colander waiting to go into the refrigerator. Between the cucumber salad and some Swiss chard at supper, and now this cabbage snack, I may be offsetting a good bit of the rat poison in my system. Wednesday we shall find out.

As for Uncle Emil's artifacts, I have to say that the bundle was not quite as advertised. There are some WW2 memoirs -- I think he was putting stuff together to try to write a book and basically only got as far as the outline -- and a series of letters from 1957-1959. What is there is an interesting picture of life at sea, but there is not the detail that I was hoping for to fill in the stories that Uncle Mike and Dad told. One thing is certain; Uncle Emil was a stickler for detail, and had both a flair for drama and a wicked sense of humor.

He also had the dreaded Hrubik temper. The notarized statement accompanying his official resignation of command on 24 October 1945 contains an apology for what he had "written in the heat of anger".

So I suppose I need to catalog the stuff and then create a blog page just for that. For now, I'll just post this : Capt. Emil Hrubik, on the flying bridge of his new post-war command, the S.S. William A. Henry (Matson Lines), 1946.

Pickin' 'n' Grinnin'

On May 14, Jakob was in a recital at the Nervous Dog. I was able to take a video clip. Too bad I don't have a real Hi-Def camera.

Poking a Hornet's Nest

The news yesterday morning carried the story that John Demjanjuk, the man known to many as the guard "Ivan the Terrible" at the Sobibor death camp for 6 months in the summer of 1943, was found guilty of the murder of over 28,000 people there.

If you recall, Demjanjuk moved to Cleveland after WW2 and became a U.S. citizen. When he was finally tracked down, he was stripped of his citizenship and deported to Israel to stand trial. The FBI stated that the evidence of his crimes came from the Soviet KGB and could not be trusted. He had lied about his past on the citizenship application, however, and the decision of the INS was just.

In Israel, at his trial, there were no witnesses who could say that Demjanjuk had actively participated in any murders. A cruel guard, yes. A murderer, no. He was convicted and sentenced to death, but the conviction was overturned on appeal when evidence pointed to a different guard.

Charges were then quickly filed in a German court. The German court has now found Demjanjuk guilty of murder -- not because he had actually killed anyone, but because he was present as a guard in the camp at the time murders were committed. His was guilt by association.

Perhaps the lesson is that people should always act according to their conscience and not follow the crowd. The Nuremberg tribunals should have had a bigger impact on our society than they did; the principle that a person is responsible for his own actions regardless of the authority issuing orders became a basic tenet of American law. That was why the courtmartial of LTC Terry Lakin, for refusing to go to Afghanistan until he was shown valid proof that President Obama was indeed Constitutionally eligible to occupy the office and act as Commander-in-Chief, was so critically important.

That same President acted on information as to the whereabouts of a man who was wanted in the United States for the murders at the World Trade Center. He ordered the SEAL team to enter Osama bin Laden's compound, and, if bin Laden resisted capture, to kill him. The SEALs were simply following their orders. An accused (and self-confessed) murderer was put to death, and it seemed that all America rejoiced.

The Constitution of the United States was a unique document, designed to protect the individual from the overly exuberant exercise of democracy. It protected the individual from searches without a warrant (4th Amendment). It protected the individual from trial for a capital crime without indictment by a grand jury, and from being forced to testify against himself (5th Amendment). It provided that an accused criminal had the right to be tried before a jury and to confront the witnesses against him (Article 3 Section 2, and 6th Amendment).

America has rejoiced over the elimination of Osama bin Laden. In other parts of the world, however, questions are being asked as to whether or not his execution was carried out legally. Congress did not declare war on bin Laden, nor on Afghanistan, nor Pakistan. No grand jury indicted him for murder. The Prime Minister of Germany stated that she was glad bin Laden was dead; a German judge has filed criminal charges against her for violating a German law forbidding the encouragement of illegal acts. Could it be that the German judge has a better grasp of American law than our own President? Could it be that in following their Commander-in-Chief's orders -- and the democratic will of the majority of Americans -- the SEAL team violated their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?

Additionally, while the Constitution made the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Congress alone was given the power to declare war, raise an army, and call up the militia. It was also left to Congress alone to appropriate money and designate what it would be spent on.

A second headline in yesterday's news had to do with the NATO bombing of Muammar Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, killing two journalists and their guide. Secretary of Defense Gates has said that the bombing of Libya serves no important United States interest, but that it has cost us $750,000,000. Congress has still not approved the bombing and the expenditure of the money. The American pilots flying for NATO are just following the orders of their Commander-in-Chief.

While the bombing was instigated by our NATO allies and some of the Arab League, much of the rest of the world, including the Russians and the Chinese, have been expressing their disapproval. Congress has not declared war on Libya, and no American grand jury has indicted Gaddafi of a capital crime. Could it be that the Russians have a better grasp of American law than our own President? Could it be that in following their Commander-in-Chief's orders, the American pilots have violated their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?

In the summer of 1943, John Demjanjuk never thought that his service as a guard, just following orders, would someday earn him a murder conviction. He didn't actually kill anyone. His big crime was that he was there and didn't object. Can America learn a lesson from that example? Will we someday, as a nation, stand before the Judge of the Whole Earth and answer for the fact that we were given a Constitution which we trampled under foot for the sake of revenge and self-righteousness?

Legends

As a kid, I always thought Uncle Mike and Uncle Emil were somehow bigger than life. Uncle Mike was occasionally available to interact with, but Uncle Emil was mostly out to sea.

I think Dad looked up to his oldest brother with a sense of some pride -- Emil was the kid who left home for the sea, became a war hero of sorts, and ended up losing his Navy commission (as Dad told it, for refusing his orders). Somewhere around here is the photo of the ship that the Japanese torpedo bomber took out from under him in an Australian harbor; the story goes that he escaped through a porthole in his underwear, saving only his sextant.

Sunday night, while visiting Mom (Mother's day, of course) I got a call from Mixie saying that Bruce Banyai had called and would be calling back. Last night he called back. On one of his visits here we had talked about the passing of the Old Guard, the tape I had made of Mom telling of her childhood in pre-WWII Europe, and the fact that while I had finally located my grandfather's gravesite at Greenlawn, I had no idea where my Grandmother was buried. Dad had never said where, and Bruce said that Uncle Joe never talked about his childhood.

Well, the phone call was to let me know that Uncle Joe had finally talked. Bruce had set him down and recorded about 2 hours worth of video of Uncle Joe's reminiscences. That will be edited and turned into a DVD for the next reunion, whenever, wherever. But then Bruce dropped a bombshell.

It seems that after Aunt Maxine died in 2003, Uncle Joe was contacted about whether he wanted her collection of Uncle Emil's old letters, dating back to the beginning of their marriage. He accepted a large box of documents, but busy man that he always is, never took the time to look at them. Apparently several museums turned down the collection of a seaman's letters, and they were destined for the dumpster.

However, during the videoing, Bruce was asked whether he wanted to see the collection. Being the history buff that he is, it was too good an opportunity to pass up. He was surprised by what he saw; the letters were not only the letters home to a landbound wife, but also a very detailed accounting of wartime life as a Merchant Marine captain. From what I understand, it also contains a copy of his resignation letter as he refused to captain a ship he deemed unseaworthy, and a copy of the inquest into that ship's sinking several days out of port.

Bruce has asked me to archive that material. When it gets here, if it is what I think it is, a whole new blog should be devoted just to that archive. Stay tuned, don't touch that dial!

Reflections

On September 11, 2001, I, with most other Americans, watched the destruction of the World Trade Center towers with the murder of 3,000 fellow citizens. The initial reaction was an altogether natural one; there was a desire to bring to justice the criminals who had financed and planned the deed. When it was determined that the Taliban in Afghanistan had been harboring Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attack, I, too, felt the invasion of that country, to attempt his capture, was justifiable.

Ten years have passed. Not only did the United States invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power temporarily (they are currently being relegitimatized within that country's government), we invaded Iraq and executed Saddam Hussein on the basis that he also had given aid and comfort to our enemies. Billions of dollars were spent in those quests, and continue to be spent in the aftermath, since there appears to be no clean way of extricating our troops from those regions without causing even greater disorder.

Thousands of American troops have been killed, and tens of thousands wounded or disabled; the human cost to America alone has dwarfed the number of deaths from the original WTC attacks. A President was vilified for not having successfully dealt with bin Laden, and his successor, who capitalized on the vilification of that President and, whose criticisms were in reality de facto accusations that the troops under his command were somehow derelict in their duty for their failure, is now being praised for the conclusion of the manhunt by those same troops.

The American public, by and large, is jubilant that the mastermind of the attacks has been brought to justice. What, however, have we wrought?

The current President has stated that America is not a Christian nation. The President's intent was to convey the Constitutional principle (1st Amendment) that the Federal government may not either support nor oppress any belief system. That statement was met with outrage by many who believed that it was an attack upon the historically based concept that the roots of our liberty, and the Constitution itself, are grounded in the Christian Reformation theology of the Founding fathers. While the President was in error if he denied the historical heritage of our government, he was absolutely correct if he referred to the everyday conduct of our national affairs.

Christianity is not a club that one joins, nor a social class into which one is born. It is a label used to describe those who would worship and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Those followers believe that Jesus is God, who took upon Himself a human body in order to offer Himself as the payment for their violations of His Law and to restore to them the ability to enjoy His presence without experiencing guilt.

In order to forgive them, He Himself paid the penalty -- death -- for their sin. In turn, He gave them a set of orders. He said that the greatest love one could have would be expressed by a willingness to die for a friend. He said that His friends would do whatever He ordered them to do. He ordered His friends to love their enemies, to bless those who cursed them, to do good to those who hated them, and to pray for forgiveness for those who abused them. He said that people would recognize His followers by the fact that they cared for one another the very same way He cared for them, and He was executed to pay for the misdeeds of friends and enemies alike. History records that His followers were first labeled "Christians" -- a term of contempt -- in Antioch, because they were living the way He had commanded them to love.

There is great rejoicing today in America because a criminal has been brought to justice. There are expressions of satisfaction that revenge for the attacks on the Trade Center towers has been exacted. I wonder, however, how long the euphoria will last. Certainly bin Laden's friends and co-religionists will attempt retribution. Certainly, those who financed his activities have not been dealt with. Certainly, also, it is questionable whether the expense in resources and lives have been worth the quest to kill one man.

In the Spring of 2000 I knew very little of G. W. Bush. After the primaries, however, when the campaign for the Presidency was in full swing, he made a statement that his hero was Jesus Christ. After the debauchery and perjury of the Clinton years, such a statement was a welcome hint that perhaps there were still Americans with high moral standards, and the courage of conviction in the face of what was certainly hostility to such sentiments by the supporters of his opponent. In the aftermath of the Trade Center attack, Mr. Bush called for a day of prayer, and in so doing, missed what was perhaps the greatest opportunity in modern times for a world leader to make a bold statement as to the way a nation founded on Christian ideals would conduct itself.

We will never know what might have been had the President called instead for a day of fasting and repentance, as well as prayer. The blatantly immoral character of the previous administration had been a blot on the nation's history, and the looming economic recession in the late summer of 2001 was a portent of what would follow half a decade later as the result of fraudulent financial practices. The makeup of the United States government -- of the people -- has always been an accurate reflection of the people themselves.

Who knows what good things might have resulted from introspection into the nation's moral conduct, and a turning to the Christian principles from which it originally drew it's inspiration? Would the billions of dollars spent on overseas wars have found their way into improvement of America's infrastructure, and a higher quality of life for all of our people? Would the thousands of dead soldiers have contributed instead to greater domestic energy independence, or the dream of space exploration, or medical advancements? Would the innate selfishness of the Nation's budgetary process have given way to a prudent fiscal policy?

Another day set aside as the National Day of Prayer has come and gone. There are those who have ignored it out of ignorance or spite. There are those who perhaps have prayed that spiritual revival might overtake the Nation, or that some heroic figure would arise to preach, like Jonah, sermons that would bring the land to repentance. It might be good to reflect on the fact that those who were first called "Christians" were a small group of individuals that simply lived in obedience to the instructions of Jesus. They were a despised minority. They had no power, but the power of love, and through the exercise of that love, they shook the Earth.

Do not pray for the revival of the Nation unless you are willing to pray first for your own life to be changed through repentance and obedience to the teaching of Jesus; to love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and forgive even those who have not the slightest remorse over the wrong they have done to you. Only through that can this great Nation be revived.

Wild Curves!!

The biggest problem I have with getting motivated is getting motivated. I've been working on the kitchen cabinet doors, however, and I'm down to the last two -- the doors in the small curved cabinet by the stove.

The curved section of the cabinet has an 8-5/8" radius. Building the door with MDF, I wanted the smallest possible segments for the smoothest curve. I decided to go with 1/2" segments. Laying it out on cardboard, I was able to figure on a 1.6 degree bevel; I set the saw at 2 degrees and played with the angle until it worked.



A form needed to be built to hold the segments in place as they were glued.



I used the trammel point jig for the router to cut the curves in the form; for some reason the radius that resulted was about 1/16" smaller than it should have been so I bent some shim stock to pad the form out.



Once I had all 28 of the segments cut out, and the two edge pieces (straight sections on the ends) I glued them up and clamped them with a combination of pipe and strap clamps. Wax paper strips were used to keep the segments from sticking to the form.



After it had set for a few hours, I began sanding the exterior. The interior, however, still needs work, and maybe some glue-and-sawdust filler. I went ahead and cut the hinge pockets and mounted the hinges for a test fit.



The exterior looks pretty good at this point. I know that once it is painted it will still be easy to see each individual segment, but the curve is fairly smooth. The important part is that the chief designer thinks its just fine. Suits me.

Garden News

Lettuce, red onions, cabbage, broccoli, and brussels sprouts are poking up in the greenhouse. Moved two flats of tomato and pepper seedling out there; they showed some drooping this morning. Whether it was from cold or too much water, I don't know, but I punched holes in the bottoms of the paper cups and the sun has warmed the greenhouse now. Some of the plants have stood back up.

I am seeing sprouts of a few of Dad's oxheart tomatoes -- YES! It took a long time for them to pop. Bek's Beefsteaks came up in just 3 or 4 days (fresh seed), the Rutgers and Romas took over a week (4 year old seed), but the oxhearts from 1992 took almost a month to germinate. At least I got plenty of seedlings from the 2007 jalapenos (the big ones) and wax peppers; the banana peppers are just now starting to sprout.

Put a 33 gallon black trash can full of water inside the greenhouse to act as a heat sink. We just haven't had much in the way of sunshine the last week or so.

Down 'n' Dirty

Yesterday I transplanted several dozen more of the garlic starts that came out of the tops I clipped last summer. Then I stuck close to a hundred garlic cloves into the ground in a second bed -- those were some heads of garlic that my neighbor gave me last Fall and which sat in the greenhouse over Winter (they were starting to show green sprouts, so I decided to bury them). After that some carrot and parsnip seed went into another bed. Its supposed to snow tomorrow.

Inside the greenhouse the cabbage and broccoli seeds are coming up. In the basement, Bek's heirloom beefsteak tomatoes are reaching for the sky, and her giant Chinese sweet peppers are poking out of the dirt. The Sweet 100 tomatoes, the Rutgers, and the Romas are all coming out as well.

Still looking for signs of life in the pot with Dad's oxheart tomato seeds from 1992. The big wax peppers, spicy banana peppers, the big jalapenos, and the little chilis are making me wait. I expect some activity in those pots any day now.

Spring is here. Have to go make a celebration.

Hands Off Libya!

In the 2000 Presidential election, I voted for George W. Bush. At the top of the list of reasons was his statement in the campaign that his hero was Jesus Christ. Such a statement, in the political climate of the time, was a bold and brave position -- it bespoke personal courage. A second reason was his avowed fiscal proposals which closely approximated my own, such as allowing private citizens to partially control their Social Security accounts, in short, granting them true ownership of their retirement funds rather than having the government hold those funds in trust. A third reason was his position on the role of the United States as a "nation-builder" -- he stated in his campaign that such activity had to come to a stop.

That last reason was one which I greatly cheered. I have always respected George Washington's view that the United States should avoid foreign entanglements. The Federal government was intended to provide a mechanism for the sovereign States to

"insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the[ir] common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

It was not intended as a proxy for them to wage war on other governments. I had hoped that Mr. Bush would pursue a course away from the use of American military might in an offensive capacity, particularly those actions which advanced the political will of other foreign powers. The toadying of Mr. Clinton to the European Union in countering the efforts made by an American ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism had been particularly disappointing.

The post-9/11 response of the United States was, to me, a missed opportunity. Rather than turning our gaze upon ourselves and seeking the guidance of God to react in a manner that would starkly contrast the position of a nation based on Christian principles as opposed to terrorists with Islamic principles, we sank to their level. Rather than turning to God Almighty as our protector and avenger, we, as a nation, directly disobeyed His command to not seek revenge on our own.

True, we wreaked revenge on the Taliban in Afghanistan for their support of terrorists. Nevertheless, the Taliban were not destroyed, and when American policy shifted, from winning the hearts of the people by helping them, to the surge of combat forced by those who had fixated on destroying bin Laden, we undid all the good which we had previously boasted. We are in a no-win situation in that country, desperately seeking a way out.

True, we removed Saddam Hussein from power, but into the vacuum moved more Islamic radicals, particularly those allied with the Iranian regime. Our troops are moving out of Iraq, and the "democracy" that we supposedly instituted there will quickly increase the power of the Shiite mullahs as soon as our troops are gone. However, as with all democracies, the rights and freedoms of individual Iraqis will be curtailed in favor of the will of the heathen mob.

Currently, there is pressure on the United States to "do something" militarily to intervene on behalf of the anti-government forces in Libya. The reasons given are that a number of U.S. nationals are unable to get out of that country and may be endangered by the fighting, and, besides, the oil must be kept flowing. There is also pressure on the United States to "do something" about the pirates operating out of bases in Somalia. The instant another "hot spot" develops, pressure will rise for the United States to "do something" militarily to resolve the problem. Of course, the moment any such "something" is done, our nation will be vigorously condemned by the most vocal of our enemies, and weakened by having disobeyed God.

The United States was not "built" by some other nation intervening in the affairs of the States. Our Constitution was not forced upon us by a cabal of other nations that wanted to see us free. Our liberties have been dribbled away by decades of voters apathetic to the basic problems we face, but they were gained through the mortal sacrifice of thousands of citizens who wanted to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Until the peoples of other lands have that same drive and zeal, no amount of American military might can make and keep them free. We are stupid to waste our resources chasing dreams induced by the drug called pride.

What should our response be to the violence in Libya? I would say, stay out of it. U.S. military intervention will not win us any lasting friends, and in the end will not serve any national security purpose since a "democratically" elected government there will have the same attitude toward us as that of the Afghans and Iraqis. Besides, anyone caught up in the chaos in Libya was probably there mainly to assist those who oppose American policy; there were few other reasons for American nationals to be in a country which was antagonistic toward us. Let the Libyans sort it out themselves. It is the only way they will gain any lasting appreciation for their freedom once they grasp it. If American nationals want to privately take sides in the fighting over there [shades of the Spanish Civil War?], let them, but do not spend any effort to extract them when the going gets tough. Also, any attempts to prosecute that warfare on American soil should be dealt with as an ordinary crime; "freedom fighters" carrying the war to America are simply terrorists of a different stripe.

What of the Somali pirates? Our navy was created to protect American shipping, but it has no business doing the dirty work for other nations. The Constitution has the solution embedded in Article 1, Section 7 :

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".

All Congress has to do is resolve that the pirates are a menace, and then start issuing hunting licenses. The sinking or recapture of the vessels used by the pirates as "mother ships" would soon make the pirates more cautious as to who they might attack, and the ability to sell the prizes would attract both investors and privateer sailors.

Our military personnel are too valuable to be used as a sop to foreign powers that want us to solve their problems for them. Under strict interpretation of the Constitution, they were intended only for defense. To the Founders, the concept of a standing army was distasteful (note the 2-year limitation on military appropriations in Article 1, Section 7); the army of King George had been a primary aggravation to the signers of the Declaration. The Constitution was a compact between the States, and the chief reliance was to be upon the Militia (again note Section 7) --

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".

That would imply use only within the borders of our own country. The need to impose command structure on the varied elements pushed the Congress to further institutionalize the military, and with that extension of control by Congress, the tasking of our military became a political problem.

It is high time to carefully disengage our troops from overseas combat and retask them to true national defense. It is high time to cease meddling in the internal power struggles of other nations and allow them to gain their own liberty with self-respect. We have no business building other nations.

n.b. There are those who immediately raise the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act as objections, but those laws permit use of the military for law enforcement if so authorized by Congress. The defense of our own borders does not require any change in our current laws, rather, it simply requires the will of Congress to do something. While the President serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, his dereliction of duty in the face of a Congressional declaration would be an act of treason. In any event, upon the President's failure to act, or the failure of Congress to act, the command of the Militia (as contrasted to the National Guard, which is part of the Army) devolves to the governor in most States.

Groundhog is Delicious

Got your attention, didn't I?

It is delicious. From Al's, or homemade. Or even from the garden, say some. Filet of Phil. Just not kosher at all.

Anyway, the date reminded me that I needed to check in with the Old Farmer's Almanac to see what I should really expect for a while. You can get a free two month forecast at 2011 Long-Range Weather Forecast and filling in your ZIP code.

Then I looked at the gardening section, and found 2011 Best Planting Dates for Seeds for Wadsworth, Ohio -- you need to fill in your own ZIP code.

Then, under Plant Guide: Vegetables, Herbs, & Fruit, I found the following:
That is interesting, because I tried a variation of this last summer in my new beds, mulching the potatoes with leaves. There is also a trash-bag version of the technique being popularized by an Indian Indian. I'm leaning toward the five gallon bucket alternative.

Just think -- the tables say I should be seeding my cabbage, broccoli, tomatoes, and peppers indoors in just 3 more weeks. Spring is coming, groundhog or no.

Ricin Beans

The big news out of Summit County the past day or so is the FBI bust of a man in Coventry Township who was arrested "on a federal charge of illegal possession of a biological substance" (Owner of house arrested on ricin charge). The ABJ story also contains a quote from the Coventry fire chief, saying "'a very small container in the refrigerator, less than a coffee can", and a reassuring one [sarcasm is my middle name]:

Gene Nixon, Summit County health commissioner, said the substance "seemed to have been there a long time" and endangered no one.

"Relax . . . there's never been a threat," he said.

At this point, the former resident (his house is in foreclosure) who is unemployed, on Medicaid, has no assets, and had to borrow a pair of glasses to read the complaint, has a warm place to sleep and plenty to eat in a publicly run hostel [AKA jail].

The article also states that the man being arraigned had not yet been interviewed by the FBI. It fails to mention the form or quantity of the "ricin". What we are told is that the FBI received a "tip" that ricin was present in the house, and acted to seize it. We are also told,

"Scott Wilson, an FBI spokesman, would not speculate on the motive for possessing the material but ruled out terrorism as a possible use."

I once had a high regard for the FBI -- until I had need of them. In all my life I have only notified authorities once of a crime -- it was so egregious that to ignore it would be to participate, seeing that I had been engaged by one of the participants as a ploy in covering it up and facilitating it.

Several years ago I was engaged to appraise a property for a sale. The home had not been completed, and a prior appraisal had failed to take into account the value "as-is" as well as "as-complete". The loan officer readily faxed me a copy of the sales agreement, which showed a price nearly $500,000 over the list price. It also did not have the seller's signature. I requested a copy of the agreement from the real estate agent, and what she faxed me had a sales price very near the list price. The original appraisal utilized comparable sales that were completely outside the subject's market, and fully supported the price on the loan officer's bogus sales agreement. I checked on the buyer -- the internet is a valuable tool for locating people -- and found that he had a strong Middle Eastern presence. Further, the property under consideration was one which I would consider ideal for certain types of para-military training operations.

So I called my local FBI office. And left a message. And called them again. It took nearly two weeks before an agent called me back to ask more about the particulars. I told him what I had discovered; that I had black-and-white evidence of bank fraud to the tune of a half million dollars.

His advice? The sum in question was too small for the FBI to be concerned about. I should call my local Sheriff and have his fraud squad take care of it. Do I respect the power of the FBI -- their arms and technology? You betcha. Do I think they are interested at all in upholding the Constitution? You gotta be jerking my chain.

After another week of phone persuasion the Summit County Sheriff sent over a deputy with a subpoena for my file. I specified what the subpoena should request, because I did not want anyone seizing my hard drive containing my appraisal software. The deputy left with the CD containing a complete copy of my findings, my appraisal report, and the original appraisal report. I cannot turn in the fraudulent appraisal to the state regulators because the subpoena forbids me to discuss the specifics of the case with anyone, and that is as far as I take this item.

I will tell you what I think happened to the man in Coventry Township. Ricin is the active ingredient in the pulp of the castor bean. After the bean is pressed for oil, the pulp can be processed and the ricin separated through the use of electrophoresis. I doubt that this man had the technological ability to create his own electrophoresis setup, and from the sound of it, had no money to purchase commercially available equipment. Even if he had, the ability to isolate the ricin from the electrophoresis gel is a further technological step. It is highly unlikely that the substance found in the refrigerator was actually ricin in a form that could be weaponized. If it was weapons-grade ricin, the quantity needed to be effective is so large that our own military has ruled out the practicality of weaponizing it. That is why the authorities could state with confidence that there was no danger and that terrorism could be ruled out.

My guess is that the man had some castor beans in his refrigerator, holding them there to be planted in the Spring. The castor bean plant is a very common ornamental. This fits with the "very small container" description, and the vagueness in describing what was actually found. His misfortune was probably telling somebody that the beans were there and then, perhaps in a fit of Darwinian genius, informing them that such beans were what ricin was made from. Snowballs roll downhill.

This case will probably quietly go away. Lots of tax dollars will be spent in make-work for law enforcement. Osama is probably ROTFL in his cave. The terrorists have scored again, because the US government showed up to help.

Yellow Journalism : The Devil is in the Details

As a grumpy old man I occasionally find myself empathizing with Elijah as he faced the prophets of Baal. One of the surest ways to twist my tail is to point me at a newspaper article where the salient facts are buried and the salacious facts are trumpeted.

Come now, let us reason together. Everyone who thinks that a convicted felon should be able to expect a jail sentence, raise your hand. Everyone who thinks that a person who lies to get a service someone else paid for is a hero, nod your head. Everyone who thinks it is acceptable to steal $30,000 for a good cause, say "Amen".

I thought so.

Do not mistake my targets. I do not wish to imply that only the reporters in the liberal press are demon-inspired. However, in the January 26, 2011 article in the Akron Beacon Journal, Kelley Williams-Bolar leaves jail but public outcry escalates, the following two statements are separated by a single paragraph :

"A jail official confirmed that Williams-Bolar, 40, was released about 10 a.m., after serving nine days of a 10-day sentence for improperly enrolling her children in Copley-Fairlawn schools."

and

"On Jan. 18, Williams-Bolar was sentenced to 10 days in jail after a jury convicted her of two felony counts of tampering with records. She also was given two years of probation and ordered to perform 80 hours of community service."

So which statement is true?

Let's recap some facts.

1. Williams-Bolar lives in Akron in subsidized housing where the subsidy is dependent on the number of occupants
2. Williams-Bolar signed affidavits both stating that her children were residents of Akron (to obtain the subsidy) and Copley Twp. (to get taxpayer provided education)
3. Copley-Fairlawn Schools determined that the amount of tuition stolen from the district by the deceit was about $30,000
4. Williams-Bolar was given opportunity to repay the stolen tuition but refused

I count three (3) commandments of the Big Ten violated: the ones that have to do with coveting, lying, and stealing. However, because Williams-Bolar is black, people like the Rev. Al Pinhead see this as a case of racial oppression, and droves of others across the country have expressed solidarity with this criminal -- "A Change.org web-based petition seeking to reduce William-Bolar's sentence on appeal had collected almost 7,000 signatures by midafternoon. 'She has been robbed of the opportunity to elevate her life and the lives of her family through her own intelligence and hard work — the alleged "American Dream," ' the petition read in part."

Bullfeathers. Certainly anyone who seeks a better set of circumstances for her children will find sympathy in the population at large. However, the fact that a supposedly "Christian" nation throws the Ten Commandments under the bus whenever they conflict with self-delusional righteousness is an indication that the "Christianity" professed by the majority is nothing but the fraud its atheistic critics claim it to be.

Let us get some things straight. God is not the author of situation ethics. It is never right to do wrong. Sin is not measured by degree; the Bible is clear that if a person offends in one point of the Law, he has broken the whole thing. The problem is not that people sin. The problem is that people refuse to confess the sin and repent. What foolishness to raise money to appeal the conviction when a better purpose would be served by raising the money to repay her debt to the taxpayers she cheated.

It is not hard to visualize a situation in which a person makes a deliberate decision to sin in order to avoid an unpleasant alternative. I fully understand that kind of situation. To claim that something is a lesser evil, however, still leaves you with an evil. To claim that the lesser evil somehow is mitigated by the situation is to despise the sacrifice of Jesus for all of our sin. The bogus Christians will read this and start looking for some big stones, because it will irritate them as greatly as Stephen's audience was irritated.

The liberal press would have you try to serve both God and self. God would have you die to self and live for Jesus Christ. The outrage that has been expressed is only a symptom of the ignorance of righteousness within the general population. Don't be a chump. Stand up for the Ten Commandments, and don't let anybody tell you they no longer count.

Liberalism = Mental Illness

Liberalism has been described as a form of mental illness (Lyle H, Rossiter, Jr., MD, The Liberal Mind : The Psychological causes of Political Madness, Free World Books LLC, St. Charles IL, 2006). [n.b. There are other books out with similar titles and conclusions, but to mention them here would immediately cause manifestation of psychotic symptoms in people whom I wish to cause to think rationally.]

One of the hallmarks of the modern liberal movement has been the concept of political correctness, that is,

1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.

(Christine Ammer, The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms, Houghton Miflin Company, NY, 1997)

In attempting to redress perceived injustices, it is argued by those subscribing to the concept that censorship is good if it is controlled by people who have a more righteous mindset (i.e, similar thinking liberals).

Enter the selective use of certain words. At this point it is appropriate to postulate a null hypothesis that God did not confuse the languages at Babel to try to prevent political correctness. I welcome any and all tests which might tend to cause that null hypothesis to be rejected at, say, a confidence level of 10%. In any event, the PC (politically correct) crowd has moved with great success to take out of literature those things which they deem offensive; they specialize in tare removal (viz. Matthew 13: 24-30). That this is a good thing is possibly linked to the belief that people with sensitivity to gluten won't miss the wheat anyway.

Here we have poor Huckleberry Finn on the cutting room floor (New edition of 'Huckleberry Finn' to lose the N-word) where the term that Huck uses throughout the story to describe his friend Jim is converted to a form that is less offensive to Certain People.

Language is a means of transporting thoughts from one person's mind to the mind of another. It may be through the use of words; the term has also been logically extended to drawings (the alphabet is a type of abstract art), gestures ("body language"), actions (kisses and punches come to mind), or smells (some people are deliberately raunchy). What is most important, however, appears to be context. Pushing a person into the path of a car has a completely different meaning from pushing a person out of the path of a car -- both actions are communicating a thought by pushing, but the context makes the message.

So I would ask, what is the difference between the term that Mark Twain placed in Huck Finn's conversation, and the use of "n-word", "n*****", or some other euphemism, as used by good liberals, if the intended meaning is the same? For that matter, as a descendant of Slavs, I should be able to claim that the term "slave" needs to be banned, since it is a derogatory word that is derived from the language of my ancestors, and besides, sláva roughly translates as "glory" (moc a sláva = power and glory, or, sláva Kristu veliká = glory to Christ the great).

Further, the word "slave", which is to be used instead of "n-word" in this new PC re-write of Twain's classic is quite imprecise. The classic Latin term servus, or "slave" is the origin of our English word "servant", but servitude is broken down into both voluntary and involuntary servitude. The latter is what most people mean when they say "slavery". However, voluntary slavery -- indentured servitude -- was the means by which a substantial number of Europeans were brought to America. Thus, to be precise, if Huck's companion is to be called Slave Jim, he should really be retitled Involuntary Slave Jim to differentiate him from some immigrant Irishman of the time who would properly be called Voluntary Slave Jim.

There is another consequence to this whole flapdoodle. Let us say that another generation passes, indoctrinated in the new PC ignorance. The only people who use the "n-word" are people privileged by birth and skin color to do so. Students reading history will have the impression that the involuntary servitude of people of African descent was really not such a bad thing after all, since, based on rewritten PC literature, the slave owners politely called their slaves "Slave ***", and whenever they see the "n-word" used in a historical context, it will have been laundered to mean that the person so tagged was viewed as a fraternal comrade. So much for the corruption of history.

Indeed, liberalism is a mental illness.