What a Turkey!

Yesterday (3-4-2010), by a 23-22 vote, the House Foreign Affairs Committee approved sending House Resolution 252, "Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution" to the House floor for a vote by the full House.

As a result of this action, the government of Turkey has recalled its ambassador Turkey recalls envoy to U.S. over panel's 'genocide' vote. The Turks, who once went under the name "Ottoman Empire", and who butchered their way into the heart of Europe, are unhappy that their actions against the Armenians in the early 20th Century could possibly be censured by the Representatives of the American People.

So unhappy are they, that they have resorted to threats. It seems, however, that you have to read foreign newspapers to find out what is going on over there Ankara warns of 'consequences'

"Turkey warned the Obama administration on Friday of negative diplomatic consequences if it fails to impede a US resolution branding the World War I-era killing of Armenians as genocide.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said his country, a key Muslim ally of the US, would assess what measures it would take, adding that the issue was a matter of "honor" for Ankara."

...

"Davutoglu said the Obama administration had not put sufficient weight behind efforts to block the vote and called on Washington to do more to prevent the measure from now going to the full House.

The measure was approved at a time when Washington is expected to press Turkey to back sanctions against Iran to be approved in the UN Security Council, where Turkey currently holds a rotating seat. Turkish cooperation is also important to US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also at stake are defense contracts. Turkey is an important market for US defense companies, many of which had lobbied against the measure."

News reports in this country have told of the Turkish unhappiness, but the JPost article was the first I had seen that contained the revelation that the Turks simply do not understand how the United States government works.

The President is the representative of the United States. The Congressman from each district is the representative of the people of his State. When an American points to a President and says, "He's not my President, in a certain sense of the phrase, he is correct. The President is simply one citizen among equals, not a king or dictator. Because of this, there is often a sense of anger when a President attempts to tell Congress what to do.

Maybe the Turks should get a history book and look up the "XYZ Affair". Ha! Maybe some Americans should do the same. We may not be the most diplomatic people in the world, as some nations consider diplomacy, but we do tend to react as Charles Pinckney is said to have done when the French tried to interfere in American policy by asking for a bribe to avoid war, "Millions for defense, sir, but not one cent for tribute."

It takes a Turkey to try to influence the representatives of the American people by threatening the President of the United States. The real question is whether this President is anything at all like John Adams.

Spring is Coming

Yesterday I was able to get into the greenhouse for the first time since the beginning of the year. Had to shovel away almost a foot of snow from in front of the door; in spite of the melting the snow is still piled around the sides from where it slid off, and the door had been blocked by several feet of snow that had accumulated through normal snowfall plus drifting.

Outside, it was barely above freezing. Inside, the temperature was a balmy 56 degrees. The lettuce I planted in the Fall with a hope of having fresh greens at Christmas seems to have survived. We shall see. In a day or so I maybe there will be some new growth, I hope, and then perhaps there will be home-grown salad for Easter.

The sweet basil and pepper plants that were left over the winter need to be cleaned out and the soil improved with some manure and lime in preparation for planting.

I need to get a thermometer with a probe in order to take the soil temperature a few inches down. It is March; time to seed onions, cabbage, broccoli, some more lettuce...

Any more suggestions as to what I should try to grow in there?

Amendment Four

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment was a reaction of the Founding Fathers to police power abuses that allowed public officials to invade private homes to search for items which might be used to incriminate the owners or other occupants. It has been the subject of fierce debate between those who style themselves the champions of personal rights, and those who claim that it has been overly broadly used to coddle criminals.

A major concern is that Fourth Amendment rights are widely misunderstood or even waived; the authority to search can be given to public officials by default if a citizen does not understand where to draw the line. Those close to me know that I often deride and mock the ACLU and its liberal friends, but I recommend several resources that they have made available on-line : BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters (FlexYourRights.org), Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 (Professor James Duane, Regent Law School), and Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 (Officer George Bruch, Norfolk VA Police Dept.).

The multitude of laws on the books has created a situation where it is nearly impossible for a citizen to avoid breaking one of them. It is not far from the truth to say that the primary cause of crime in the United States is Congress (or, your State legislature, or city council, etc.). In Ohio, it is against the law for a driver to pass another car without giving an audible signal; if you are an Ohio driver, do you blow the horn every time you pass a car on the Interstate? If not, you are breaking the law. That may sound ridiculous, but it is true. When the law was written, there were no multi-lane highways, and the situation was not anticipated. You will not, however, be arrested for that violation unless the cop you just passed has had a really bad day. In fact, if you use your horn while traveling between the sound barriers in a residential area, you might be arrested for breaking the law against disturbing the peace as you comply with the traffic law.

That exposes the crux of the problem. There are so many laws, many of which conflict with others, that if the police were to do their job, by the book, we would all be in jail and traffic would still be backed up from last week as we waited for our tickets to be written out. Thus, the police tend to look the other way (in violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of their State) simply because it is impractical to enforce every law. They tend to use their discretion when deciding who to stop and question, and consequently, casual encounters with the police sometimes inadvertently turn into arresting events.

The operative phrase is "unreasonable searches and seizures". So what is a "reasonable" excuse for a search or seizure? The courts have held that if an officer has "probable cause" to think that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, that can be "reasonable". The ability of police to carry out such searches is crucial to our security, especially in view of the possibility of terrorist acts being committed among our midst, and great care must be exercised in limiting their ability to do their job. The danger is that law enforcement officers are just as subjective as the rest of the citizenry, and their perception of an activity may influence their judgment as to probable cause. Coupled with the power of the badge, citizens may unwittingly yield their rights.

There are those who would say, "So what? If you have nothing to hide, why be afraid of a search?" I can think of two reasons immediately. The first is the insult that accrues to being accused of illegal activity by virtue of coming under suspicion because of another individual's perceptions. In times when personal honor was more highly valued, such an accusation would have precipitated violence, possibly a duel to the death. Indeed, that may be the reason why some individuals even today react angrily to such an accusation.

The second reason has to do with the multiplicity of laws created by people who try to force perfection on a human society. Nanny-state governance always takes away freedom from the individual and is usually excused as being "the will of the majority". The person whose unique dreams and desires are crushed by the imposition of democracy will no doubt call it the "tyranny of the majority".

One of the possible partial solutions to the problem is to simply not make so many things illegal. The idea of being secure in "persons, houses, papers, and effects" is strongest in a society where individual liberties have not been restricted. Sometimes those liberties may offend our sensibilities, sometimes they may outrage us, sometimes the liberty that another person has may reduce our own ability to make a monetary gain, and sometimes that liberty may give an individual the opportunity to hurt himself. Freedom is always obtained by the destruction of the power of an oppressor, and often is held at the peril of the possessor.

I believe that the most reasonable way to strengthen and preserve our rights under the Fourth Amendment would be a systematic culling of outdated laws, and repealing of laws which restrict personal liberties. When government requires a citizen to participate in a program, or attempts to protect a person from his/her own actions, or provides relief for the consequences of foolish actions, it ultimately paves the way for the surrender of basic Constitutional rights.

It was pointed out by a reviewer that the examples I cited above were local and State laws, and that there are Federal laws which also need to be reviewed and, if not modified to fit the times and possibly redesigned to be flexible as society's needs change, repealed. These include :

• "hate crimes" laws of all sorts, which create a degree of criminality based on what an accuser believes a criminal's intent to be,
• tax laws which create special "tax courts" not bound by ordinary rules of evidence and procedure,
• any and all laws, whether civil or criminal, in which the accused must pay for his/her legal defense, even if found innocent,
• portions of the Davis-Bacon Act, which allow the Secretary of Labor to arbitrarily set the "prevailing wage", and which clearly violate Amendments One and Fourteen, and
• portions (or the entirety) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which assumes that all business owners are guilty of corruption until they can prove themselves innocent.

Many of these laws were passed as knee-jerk reactions to special interests, and are examples of why a representative republic with limited opportunity to change the law is preferable to a democracy in which emotions allow mob rule to create repressive conditions for not only a minority at one point in time, but for the whole of society over a long period.

It is my hope that in some way I could be instrumental in repealing Federal legislation that unduly restricts the rights of citizens to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

Amendment Three

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Very few Americans give thought to this amendment, yet its origin lay in the practice of the British military to conscript civilian housing for its soldiers. The Declaration of Independence complains,

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

and because the Congress had the power to both declare war and raise an army, the States were concerned that the abuses they had suffered before could be repeated.

While this amendment to our Constitution may seem unnecessary today, it is a reminder of our history and the reasons why the Founding Fathers were willing to risk their lives, fortunes, and honor for the cause of freedom. It is one more restriction on the government, and the more tightly the government is bound, the less likely it will hurt the people.

Amendment Two

As free Englishmen, the American colonists could point to a history in which local yeomen were called upon for defense of their towns and for mutual aid when disasters struck. They were the frontline of homeland security, foreign wars being largely the province of knights, nobility, and conscripted serfs.

When the United States came into being, the inhabitants of the States were concerned with being able to defend themselves from attack by a hostile power to the north -- British Canada. Previous to its absorption by the British Empire, that region, as French Canada, had also been a dangerous enemy. American history courses tend to minimize coverage of that time period.

There was also an enemy to the west. One of the reasons specifically given for the Declaration of Independence was the failure of George III to protect the colonies from Indian attack:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

From the time of the Pequot War (1635), through the French and Indian War (1763), and on until almost the beginning of the 20th Century, the frontier was a dangerous place where no man, unarmed, could feel safe.

Finally, after independence had been gained from Great Britain, there was also the danger of interstate warfare : a classic case is the Toledo War, in which the Michigan Militia occupied the City of Toledo, Ohio. Thus the States were unwilling to ratify any document which would take away their rights to maintain a militia. The militia was to be at the service of the State governor, and had traditionally been recruited from the general populace and with officers chosen by the troops themselves.

Article I of the Constitution gives to the Congress specific powers, among which are:

• "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This, however, was not completely satisfactory to some of the more exposed frontier States. It was objected to by several of the States which claimed that it contained no prohibition on Congress disarming the militias, and the Bill of Rights contained a specific amendment which supersedes that portion of Article I :

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Second Amendment provided for the personal keeping and bearing of arms, stating in the majority opinion,

"...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

and in response to part of the minority dissent, which focused on both the preconceived notions of courts in settled case law, and the perceived need by some of the Justices for the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution in view of current fads and whims, further stated,

"A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different."

While I agree with the conclusion of the Court that the Second Amendment guarantees to the individual the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and sport, I am dismayed that in all the scholarship the construction of the Amendment itself has been misconstrued.

In every accurate transcription of the Second Amendment, there are three commas. Commas are used to set off appositives, noun phrases which identify or define a preceding noun or noun phrase, and the Second Amendment clearly has two appositives. This was pointed out to me through simple sentence diagramming (remember high school English?). "A well regulated Militia" is defined by the Amendment as both "being necessary to the security of a free State" and also as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The concern of the dissenting States was the possibility that the Congress would refuse to support the State militias. The clear intent of the Amendment is "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."

Thus the majority opinion of the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller was correct, but based on a faulty reading of the Amendment text. I believe that the Second Amendment establishes an absolute right of the individual (who is the functional unit of any militia) to keep and bear any weapon, without restraint by Congress, and therefore by extension, without restraint by any governmental body in the United States.

Thus, as per the quote by Thomas Jefferson in the previous post with respect to Amendment One, the government's interest in this matter can only legitimately concern itself with an individual's actions.

Amendment One

Congress shall make no law

• respecting an establishment of religion,
• or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
• or abridging the freedom of speech,
• or of the press;
• or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
• and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is unique. No other nation limits the powers of its government to regulate the free expression of the people to such an extent. People refer to this amendment's provisions as the rights to freedom of the press, and of speech, but the broader implications of this restriction on Congress are often overlooked.

The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect the rights of the people and the States from encroachment by the Union. The oft cited letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists provides a window into the thinking of the Founding Fathers.

The fear of repression by the State of minor sects was expressed by the Danbury Baptists thusly [emphasis is mine]:

"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. " (Danbury Baptist Association, 10-7-1801)

To which Jefferson replied,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (T. Jefferson, 1-1-1802, Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists).

Note that Jefferson's comment about "separation between Church & State" is an afterthought to his insistence that government should not interfere in the rights of the people to express themselves, and is not a restriction on those rights, as was asserted by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States (1878). [For an interesting discussion, see A Wall of Separation].

As to social duties, he wrote, "Every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. His position appears to be that the natural rights of man, those freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, make the accomplishing of the social duties possible.

The Founders were well aware of the history of abuses by government toward religious observance, and specifically included the ban on prohibiting the free exercise of religious faith. Many of the European immigrants to the United States have made their pilgrimage because they suffered persecution by the "State Church", or officially recognized religious sect, of their homeland. The nation of Switzerland, vaunted as a pioneer in "democracy", is still a prime example of a European nation which boasts of religious freedom, but which taxes its citizens to subsidize the three recognized major sects.

In the early 1800's, S. H. Frohlich, a Swiss anabaptist leader who suffered intense persecution by the official State church, wrote his treatise Matrimony According to the Word of God. In it he explained why government has no business regulating marriage; while he probably never read Jefferson's writings, he would have undoubtedly agreed with Jefferson's position respecting the First Amendment to our Constitution.

One of the great dangers of democracy is the tendency of a majority to tyrannize a minority, especially in regard to belief systems and practices. The Constitution of the United States thus is specific about protecting personal expression from government. It is for this reason that I oppose all legislation that attempts to criminalize speech, whether in the form of "hate speech", or restrictions on personal opinion in political campaigns. Such legislation clearly violates the First Amendment. I stand with Jefferson in the sentiment, that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions".

Uncle Samson

The story of Samson is not just a historical tale, but is a parable for students of human nature. If you recall, Samson was a hero of faith, chosen by God from before birth to guide and protect his fellow citizens. Because he was the biggest and baddest dude in town, he took advantage of his natural abilities and lived life to the full. His tale is full of fabulous escapades; he was the unstoppable hero of his day.

Enter Delilah. Samson knew she worked for the Philistines, and he delighted in toying with the danger. He was God's man, even when he didn't act like it. He knew in his heart that he was unstoppable, because no matter how dim the prospects, Samson had always won in the end.

Eventually Samson told Delilah his secret. He no longer took seriously the special calling he had from God. While he slept on her knees, she shaved his head. Then she did what she had done several times before -- she woke him with the news that he was under attack.

Samson jumped up, ready to do his hero thing once again. The story tells us, "He didn't realize that the gift from the LORD had been withdrawn." [Yes, I know that's a loose paraphrase, but so is my whole telling of the tale.] His enemies poked out his eyes, and put him to work as a slave.

The Founding Fathers, though they differed among themselves in exactly what they believed, all had a staunch faith that God (or as some of them put it, following the pattern of John Calvin, Divine Providence) had taken an interest in their fledgling country. He had brought it through the War for Independence, and in their minds, had commissioned them to launch a Union with a backbone of law -- a Republic, with equal justice under the law, and chains upon the government to keep it from eating the peoples' freedoms.

Over 200 years have passed since that Union was launched with ratification of the Constitution by the first 9 States. The Union has grown to 50, and the Constitution has been amended 27 times. Some of the amendments -- the first 10, and numbers 13-15, 19 and 26, have clarified the rights of individuals under the law. Some, like the 16th and 17th, which permitted the imposition of taxes on individuals and made possible the control of elections by national political parties, have had serious unintended consequences.

Like Samson, Uncle Sam has grown careless about his special calling. Our Congress has flirted with an attractive prostitute, the foreign investors on whom it has relied to finance living life to the full. The people trusted Congress with the national credit card, and Congress has run up the bill so high that it cannot be paid in our lifetimes, nor in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren. It has mortgaged us to the tune of $12,400,000,000,000 -- yes, 12.4 million million dollars -- and is at this moment considering raising its credit limit another 1.9 million million dollars.

The interest alone, paid on T-bills in the first 3 months of fiscal year 2010, was $145,000,000,000. As the risk of our default rises (we are spending much faster than we are taking in tax dollars), the interest rate demanded by our foreign creditors must rise. Our spending, except for national defense, and maintenance of our obligations to our Social Security system, must be frozen in order to avoid financial catastrophe, slavery, and war.

There are those who believe that Uncle Sam can simply wake up, and like Samson, say, "I will go out as at other times before, and find a way out of this mess." They do not realize the depth of the problem. Like Samson, they refuse to face the reality that because of our lack of good stewardship, the gift from the LORD has been withdrawn.

There are those who think that our current situation is similar to that which was faced in the Great Depression. They are wrong. In the Great Depression, we were our own creditors. In this Super Depression, we owe our mortgage to the Chinese and other foreign creditors.

In the very near future, life in America will change drastically. As a Union, we may or may not survive. Will we trade California, or Alaska, or the Pacific Northwest, to escape our mortgage and avoid war with China? On our present course, we cannot pay what we owe. Historically, the Masters of China have shown no compunction when it comes to enslaving hundreds of millions of their own citizens, or even killing tens of millions at a time.

We cannot go back to what used to be, and we have never gone this way before. God is calling America to repentance. Will we return to following our Constitution, or will we sleep in the lap of our Delilah until the Philistines are at the door?

Over or Under?

I found this press release while exercising my rights as a capitalist:

How Does America Roll?

You can even voice your opinion. And I have marked iCal so that January 27th is a recurring holiday.

Diagramming the 2nd

Joonyah says that the problem with liberals is that they have forgotten their Basic English. He has submitted this example, which you will never see in a public school :

I think it would make a neat T-shirt, but woe to the child who wears it to English class.

For those who have forgotten, the diagram clearly points out that the militia is

1. necessary to the security of a free state, is
2. defined as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and
3. cannot be infringed by Congress.

Since the 2nd Amendment was passed subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution by the original 9 States, it clearly supersedes the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and the prohibition with respect to troops in Article 1, Section 10.

Regarding Roe v. Wade

It is not possible to know in advance what sorts of legislative challenges will face the Congress in 2011 and forward, and therefore to set out numerous specific promises of action risks opening the door to the disappointment of the voters who anticipate a given set of behaviors.

My position with respect to the Constitution is this : at the age of 17, and several times thereafter, I gave my word that I would uphold that document and defend it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I intend to stay true to my word. There are those who claim that the Constitution is a document which must be interpreted in view of changing times, but I strongly disagree, for the freedoms from government oppression outlined in that document can only change if the definition of freedom itself is altered.

I have outlined in brief a number of points which I will endeavor to uphold. Some of those may be subject to minor flexibility, since I do not claim to have already formulated the optimal solutions to all problems facing the United States. I fully intend to faithfully represent those who will have chosen me to represent their interests, and I expect that at times they and I will have differences of opinion; should I be in opposition to the desires of a majority of my constituents, they may expect a strong personal protest before I carry out their wishes against my own judgment.

There are, however, several positions upon which I intend to stand resolute regardless the desires of the majority of those whom I represent. These are the protection of the unborn, the end of deficit spending by the United States, and the right of the people to know in advance what their representatives are deciding for them.

I will not vote for any legislation which includes Federal funding for abortions. It is my belief that life begins at conception, and, that once begun, a life should not be ended by men without conviction of a capital crime under due process of law. That is a religious and moral belief, and runs counter to the religious belief utilized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade when it arbitrarily decided that life begins for the unborn some 55 days after conception.

In deciding that case, the Court stated,

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

Then, rejecting the implications of personhood 'within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment', the majority of the Court proclaimed,

"...the word 'person', as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

To which Justice Rehnquist rebutted in his dissent,

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and 'has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.'

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

The majority of the Court, however, preferred to abandon the republican guarantees of legal impartiality for the democratic dogma that the few must obey the many, and that might makes right, claiming,

"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes 'viable', that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."
...
"In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."
...
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling point', in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth."
...
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Based on the Court's own decision and the advances that have occurred in medical practice in the 37+ years that have passed since the decision, it has been the fault of the State legislatures and attorneys general that no new legislation protecting the unborn from murder has been passed and successfully withstood court challenge. With the ability of science to bring an unborn child to term outside the womb, and the relatively rare occasion when physicians cannot rescue both mother and child in the event of complications, the day will soon arrive (if it is not already here) when the State may, meeting the requirements of the Roe v. Wade decision, proscribe abortion at any stage of development of the child "except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

The Court's position of continued support for Roe v. Wade is strangely paralleled with that of the Catholic Church v. Galileo; when the Law attempts to regulate scientific or technological matters, it invariably ends up looking foolish.

In any event, the Court has held that it is the responsibility of the States and not the Congress to regulate abortion. I will not support any legislation which takes from the States that responsibility, and I will absolutely not support any Federal funding for abortion.

53

Thanks, Steph!!

...!!!51!!!...

43

31

This week has been hectic (do I hear an echo?), with a push to finish some of my work, Work Night at church, and tonight, company for dinner. Thankfully, there are some dedicated volunteers out there doing my job for me. That is why the numbers are increasing.

The problem of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio.

A major hindrance to getting petition signatures on nominating petitions is fulfilling the signature requirements sections of the ORC. From the 2010 Candidate Guide, for US Representative (p5) :

Signature Requirements (R.C. 3513.05, 3513.257):

1. Major party candidates: 50 signatures
2. Minor party candidates: 25 signatures
3. Independent candidates: Based on the number of votes cast in the
congressional district in the last general election for governor:

Number of votes cast:	Number of signatures:
Fewer than 5,000	25, or a number equal to 5 percent of the vote (whichever is less)
5,000 or more	1 percent of vote

and (p19) :

Petitions for a candidate for party nomination must be signed and circulated by persons who are members of the same political party as the candidate. (R.C. 3513.05)

What we are finding frustrating in a small way is the number of people who agree with my positions, but who were disillusioned by the choices they had in previous primaries and opted to vote an issues-only ballot in those elections. By doing so, they de-registered themselves from any party affiliation, and they are not eligible to sign a party petition.

This is reasonable, since the parties themselves exist for their own benefit, and it would be ridiculous to allow people who did not share the same platform viewpoints to take part in choosing the candidates for the election. Open primaries may seem like a very egalitarian thing, but the party primary system was designed as a way for large groups of like-minded people -- the parties -- to make decisions among themselves. The decision-making process would be corrupted by including people who might have a vested interest in weakening the party's position.

Nevertheless, Ohio law needs to be amended to enfranchise those who wish to be able to have input at the base level of politics. There should be no difference in the requirements for major party, minor party, or independent candidates. This would allow presentation at the time of the general election of a slate of candidates that would cover a wide range of position options. The resistance to such a plan comes from the parties themselves, because their power to control the electoral process would be diluted by such an open arrangement.

Impetus for change will not come from the Legislature, since it is dominated by the Republican and Democrat Parties. Change will only come from an initiative by the people, and working groups to produce such initiatives should be started, using blogging sites as 21st Century "taverns" for modern patriots to gather in, for discussion and refining of the process.

21

16

13

Makin' yer mark

It has been a hectic week, but the petition signing is under way. Between wrapping up a work project, and the death and funeral of Carl Demiter, there was no time to spend on the petitions.

It would be possible to get the entire 50 signature complement from one ward in Norton, but hopefully we can get signatures from other areas as well. It would be nice to be able to file by the end of this next week.

Have to be careful what I write here from now on, lest I run afoul of McCain-Feingold. There are too many laws designed to keep power out of the hands of the people.

Stai tooned.

Gotta Run...

Picked up a petition pack yesterday at the Summit BOE. Looking for 50 registered Republicans in OH-13 to get the show rolling.

Some quickie points :

** No Federal support for abortion. I will campaign to eliminate all Federal spending that contributes to the murder of the unborn.

** No deficit spending. Period. If the money isn't there, I don't plan to vote for the bill.

** No corporate bailouts. I will not vote for corporate welfare.

** National defense means just that. No revenge campaigns, and no mercenary activity on behalf of the United Nations. Put a defense shield over the country and let each State upgrade its Militia. Secure our borders. I will not vote for foreign adventurism by the United States military, but I will not stand in the way of protecting United States shipping and passenger transportation.

** No foreign aid. If citizens of the United States want to fund a foreign government, that is their business. Millions for defense if needed, but not one tax penny for foreign entities, including the United Nations. Any citizen who wants to donate his own money to the UN is free to do so. I will not vote for foreign aid to any nation.

** Remove from the Federal Reserve banks the power to print money. I will support legislation to require complete auditing and accountability to the Congress of the Federal Reserve system.

** Repeal Amendment 16. Bill the States for the cost of maintenance of the Government of the United States in proportion to their populations as stipulated in Article 1, Section 9. Each State should be free to tax its citizens as they deem appropriate in order to meet its Federal obligations.

** Repeal Amendment 17. Restore the ability of the States to resist the power of private national political parties.

** End Federal interference in education. I will not vote for any legislation which restricts or diminishes the rights of parents to seek out and obtain the best education for their children which they can afford. I fully support the right of each State to determine the best way to provide for the education of the children residing in their respective States.

** I will not vote for any bill that has not been exposed to public examination, without alteration or amendment, for 72 hours prior to the vote. Each time any such bill is scheduled for a vote and is amended, I will require an additional 72 hour public examination period before I consider voting for it.

While some of the above positions may seem radical and hard to imagine in practice, it should be remembered that the Great Experiment in government that is the United States was considered radical and impractical when it began, and is difficult even to this day for the inhabitants of other lands to imagine and understand. My goal is the encouragement of individual freedom and the growth of the entrepreneurial spirit in all facets of American society.

No doubt there will be many people who are frightened by the specter of freedom. Nevertheless, I offer a clear choice for those who believe in the dream of America.

Hard Drive

It happened. The dreaded hard drive crash. The iMac suddenly was lost in its own case.

I was able to access the drive in target mode and update my August backup of most of my files. The I tried to let TechTool repair the drive. The repair failed. So I tried to do a reinstall of the system software. The reinstall failed with the upgrade to Tiger; installed could not find some disk sectors. Bad drive, failed its physical.

Ooops. Forgot to do a recent backup of the Quicken data. Too bad, so sad.

Off to Best Buy for a replacement. A 500Gb WD Caviar Green. $75.

The instructions on the Apple Support page were simple enough. Out came the 160Gb Seagate, in went the 500Gb WD. Into Disk Utility to do a partition - 160Gb Avram, 160 Gb Yitzhak, remainder in Yakov.

In go the system CDs. Now for the fun of setting up, then updating to Tiger (I will NOT be upgrading to Leopard, because there is no Classic support in Leopard and I like some of the Classic apps). Then all the hastle of rebuiding the important files from the backups. Oh, joy.

Moral : a backup external hard drive is a good investment.

Moral : if you have it, use it.

Gittin' the Runs

As 2009 ran out its string and 2010 crawled out of its crevice, Joonyah and I shot the breeze, lamenting the trampling of the Constitution by the current Congress. We again tossed around the question of who might represent OH-13; that is, who might be in the running to raise the moral and intellectual quality of the occupant of that seat.

We did a little exploratory work. Visiting the sites of all four Boards of Elections in OH-13 (Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina, and Summit) revealed that no candidates had filed for 2010 yet. That is OK; the deadline for filing for the May 4, 2010 party primaries is February 18, 2010. For independent candidates, the filing deadline is May 3, 2010 (because independents don't have a primary).

Looking at the FEC requirements, an individual is not considered a candidate (even if he has filed the petition and is on the primary ballot) until he (or [a] person[s] authorized by the individual) has[ve] raised of spent more than $5000 for the campaign. There is a provision for voluntary registration with the FEC even if the $5000 threshold has not been attained, but the possibility exists (although highly unlikely) that a candidate could be elected to a Federal office without tripping the requirements. Posting the information we have uncovered on this blog, because no formal efforts have been made toward candidacy to date, is a sort of grey area that may or may not fall under 11 CFR 100.94 & 100.155.

The Ohio Administrative Code, (111-1) states, "The rules set forth in Chapters 111-1 to 111-6 of the Administrative Code shall apply to the nomination or election of candidates or support for or opposition to ballot issues in state and local elections. Nothing in these rules shall be construed as limiting or regulating federal elections, and those committees, parties, candidates, or funds when they participate in such federal elections." I would assume from that statement that only FEC requirements would apply (and as with any such assumption, I could be wrong).

If I were to run, would it be as a party candidate? Yes, for two reasons. Firstly, I have been republican in my leanings my entire life. A republican form of government was to be guaranteed to all the States under the Constitution, and a respect for the Rule of Law is essential to the maintenance of individual liberty. While other forms of government may extend individual rights, no other form of government protects individual rights.

Secondly, the regulations for access to US Representative candidacy in Ohio state that a major party candidate needs 50 signatures to have access to the ballot, a minor party candidate needs 25 signatures, but a non-party candidate needs signatures totaling 1% of the number of votes cast in the district in the last general election for governor. Looking at the stats for the 13th District, there were 297,680 votes cast for Representative, and assuming that about the same number voted for governor, the minimum number of signatures required for an Independent candidate to access the ballot in OH-13 would be about 3,000. In Norton 1-B there are just over 100 registered Republican voters; it would be possible to access the ballot as a Republican for the 13th District, covering parts of 4 counties, without even leaving my own precinct to gather petition signatures.

Of course, there is always the tantalizing challenge of running an illegal campaign (WhatifI) under the guise of Libertarianism.

"See, here is deep water, what doeth let me to jump in?" [calm down, that is a paraphrase]. When I last ran for Congress in the 13th District (2000), the situation was quite similar. Just before Thanksgiving of 1999, Mickey Axlebender Thirdson and I were bemoaning the fact that no Republican candidate had yet appeared to challenge the Democrat incumbent. He said that if I ran, he would manage my campaign. I stopped at the BOE, picked up a petition packet, and off we went. In about two weeks time, we had our signatures. With a total expenditure of about $300 (never even made it onto the FEC's radar screen), and with the Summit GOP endorsing my party primary opponent, I picked up 42% of the primary vote. In fact, a part of Stark County was in the District back then, and the SOS's stats show that I actually won -- quite handily -- in the Stark County portion of the District. [But, mind you, Stark County is vastly more conservative in its politics than Summit!!]. Thus, I have no doubt that my governmental views would resonate with a substantial portion of the electorate in the 2010 climate.

However, the run in 2000 did cause some discomfort for my Better Half, who was concerned over family privacy issues and the exposition created by a political campaign. Thus, my first concern is her consent. She has said that I can do whatever I want, and such a statement has dangerous undertones. I would prefer to have her support, indeed, I need her support. She willingly complied and followed me thousands of miles in previous attempts to joust at windmills, but in those days we were both a lot younger and more resilient.

Another concern is the support of my church. In 2000, I had the support and encouragement of most of the Elders I talked with, but my responsibilities at that time were quite different. I don't doubt that I would have the encouragement of the congregation, but the bigger question is whether or not it would be to their benefit.

Finally, there are the career considerations. I am on my way toward General Certification and new levels of accomplishment in my profession. Despite my age, I could be productive for another decade or more before senility rotted my cognitive functions. Becoming a US Representative would likely be a terminal career move.

Stay tuned, this is only the first day of 2010.

CoCo RULES!!

Earlier today I got an email from Boisy Pitre, one of my on-line friends who develops Mac software, and as a hobby, supports our common interest, the Tandy Color Computer running NitrOS-9 (which is an operating system very similar to UNIX and Linux -- many very similar commands in the shell -- but which was designed to run in a 64kB space under the Motorola 68B09E processor). He wrote to the CoCoList:

Aside from Aaron [Wolfe], Jim [Hathaway] and I attempting this (with slightly buggy software), this is probably a first.

If you want to play around with NitrOS-9/6309 Level 2, then telnet to my system. I have tsmon running on ports t0-t6, although t0 isn't working for some reason. That leaves 6 ports that can be in use simultaneously.

Press ENTER when connected. You should see the tsmon login prompt, though depending on how other users disconnected, you may see a shell prompt when you press ENTER.

To get to it:

telnet aes.dyndns.org 6809

Good luck and please let me know how it works.
--
Boisy G. Pitre
http://www.tee-boy.com/

So, I fired up the x11 terminal on my iMac, and did this:



Kewl, sez I! Notice my error because it has been so long since I did any file creation in the shell (a decade and a half is a l-o-o-o-o-ng time!).

Telnet connection to a shell on a remote 8-bit machine with six simultaneous users. That used to only be possible on the same wire in the same building. The CoCo enters the 21st Century.

Time Out

I decided to do something a little different for our anniversary this year so I booked a little get-away at the Deer Creek Bed and Breakfast in Litchfield. It s a nice place to relax : two-person jetted tub in the suite, hot tub and heated pool in the greenhouse. We opted not to use the hot tub or pool, and just stayed in the room. I ran some hot water in the tub, we got in, turned on the jets, and for about a half hour enjoyed the turbulence.

Hot water massage by candlelight, and a basket of snacks with a complimentary bottle of champagne for reserving the room by calling the owner directly rather than going through bedandbreakfast.com. Which happens to be a really terrible website -- it doesn't present the terms and conditions of use until after you start inputting your credit card info, and it won't let you print out a copy to keep. (Yeah, yeah, I know I could grab a screen shot but when I'm paying, I want to dictate the conditions.) So there I sat naked by the tub, eating Aldi potato chips and sipping pink champagne, while pondering the incongruity of it all. If you don't like the picture, change the channel.

In the morning they served us a great breakfast; grapefruit, coffee, I had eggs and bacon with fried red potatoes and toast whilst VJ had waffles.

Then we headed south to Lodi Station Outlets to purchase some intimate apparel, and finally further south to Mansfield for the Christmas get-together. Joonyah fried a turkey. It was good, but I have a feeling that deep-frying the bird in oil may leach out some of the embalming fluid the birds are basted with; I think that roasting them in the turkey bag keeps in the precious liqueurs.

And then home again. Good night.

Chappy Chanukkah?

Well, I laughed.

Sister Time

Of course I took a picture. It wouldn't have been right not to.


Sue Hlavac, Katie Pohanka, Annie Hrubik, Mary Miklovic
...the surviving Cipkar sisters...
...aging gracefully...

Bittersweet

Having put away the turkey, we trekked north to the Land of Fabled Health Care. We saw Aunt Sue, who didn't quite remember who I was at first (being 91 may have some disadvantages), and then Aunt Mary, who seemed resigned to her fate as prisoner in a nursing home. She looked well and appeared to be adequately taken care of. Uncle George was our host for Friday and Saturday nights; and Cuzzin Willie threw a spectacular bash (he is becoming famous for that!) Saturday night, complete with his traditional roast pig.

The weekend did have its somber spots. Saturday afternoon was the funeral for Helen Varga, and in the evening, we met Sybil and Serena Kamasz after the testimonies at church. Sybil stunned us with the news (news to us, at least) that Gus had passed away 10 months ago to the day.

Gus Kamasz I counted as one of those people who was a "straight arrow". He immigrated to Canada from Communist Hungary as a young man, and while his English always had something of an accent, he was meticulous about his word usage and pronunciation. Like my father-in-law, he was scornful of those who were born in this country (or Canada) and were ignorant of proper English grammar. However, he had an extremely compassionate side reserved for those who were victims of misfortune and were in need of instruction and assistance. Gus and I got along famously. We could have significant disagreements and still talk and work together as brothers. We saw each other only a few times after he moved his family to Kitchener, and we moved back to Ohio, but I will miss him nonetheless. Sybil said he went out to get the snowblower from the garage, started it and put it in the driveway, came into the house to sit down for a moment, and asked her to keep an eye on it. She began to walk toward the door, heard a coughing sound from him, turned around, and he was gone. January 28, 2009.

Finally, this weekend gave me a chance to meet some more family. The Hrubik Boys from Glozan, at the turn of the last century (1900), were Paul, Mike, and John. Mike and John each had sons they named Carl (Karol). Dad corresponded with his cousin, Karol; Karol had a son (also Karol) and a daughter, Rose. I had met Rose's daughter, Caroline, many years ago, but this morning I met Rose. I also met Karol's grandson (Rose's nephew) Vladimir Hrubik, who had emailed me back in September asking me to read his new book, "When They Say Peace, Seek Shelter". So here's a plug for his book, which I have not yet read (although Willie says he has read the first chapter and part of the second but just has not had time to finish it). It's available at Amazon, Google, Barns & Noble, Author House and others.

At lunch, we sat with John and Susie Stajfer (Susie is Mom's cousin, daughter of Steve Cipkar Sr.). John's mother was a Miklovic (ah -- is Jaroslav lurking?) and I told them about the blog comments and emails I had had from both "Miklovic" and "K_C34". John said he didn't know too much about the Miklovic side of the family; he claimed he had tried to talk to his uncles at a family picnic in Cleveland years ago but the old folks suspected the younger ones of being Bolsheviks and wouldn't have too much to do with them. However, shortly after lunch, someone tapped me on the back and, when I turned around, asked if I knew who she was. She announced that she was Kathy Cipkar -- John and Susie were standing there with her, with big smiles on their faces. Kathy is K_C34's mother. We had an interesting chat.

'Nuff gossip. Time to catch some z's. Work to do tomorrow.

'Tis the Season

The commercialization of Christmas has always been troubling to me. It has been my experience that picking out gifts for people is difficult, maybe because of my practical side, but I'm always thinking about what someone might need or even use as opposed to just buying something and shoving it at them because it is expected at this time of year. Maybe that statement came out a bit raw, but the following article by George Will sort of hit my hot button :

Scroogenomics

However, my greater concern this season (as in the past several since the economic contraction began) is not so much the spending of money on senseless items, but the fact that people invariably borrow to do so. Coupled with recent notices by credit card companies to their customers that rates are going to be rising sharply (Capital One, for example, will be applying a 39.9% rate to some of its customers, and most card companies have put people -- even their best customers -- on notice that they can expect charges ranging from 19.9% - 29.9% on ordinary balances), the December bash will unhappily become a February surprise for many of these people. The great deals that people are rushing to embrace, paying with plastic today (Black Friday), will turn out to be ulcer-makers down the road.

The ultimate effect on consumer ability to spend will kick in some time in the Spring of 2010, as people struggle to pay for Christmas 2009. Consumer confidence and ability to spend are key to economic recovery, and I see a rocky road ahead.

Thinking Inside the Box

Don't spend too much time thinking "inside the box".
You will have plenty of time for that later.

Big Hal

I left a few pepper plants inside the greenhouse when I transplanted everything else outside. They are still growing and blooming while their siblings have died and gone to compost heaven. One of the jalapeno pepper plants produced some VERY large fruit :


These were meaty, which I find to be a typical jalapeno trait, and not at all hot except in the immediate vicinity of the seeds. Maybe next summer I can work on this strain some more.

Clearly an Improvement

When I built the Cloudyhouse, I covered it with clear polyethylene film, intending to replace it annually due to it not being UV resistant. The covering was put on at the end of March;



unfortunately, by the beginning of July it looked like this :



So, I sprang for a dozen sheets of corrugated polycarbonate that is supposed to be UV resistant. In the process, new framing members had to be installed. It now looks like this :




No longer a cloudyhouse is it. It still needs some weatherstripping added, and then some clear silicone caulk. There are still some peppers inside that are ripening (slowly), and I need to plant one last batch of lettuce to see if I can have some greens until Christmas. As cold as it has been, though, I have my doubts. Maybe I can start onions and cabbages in February -- we'll see!

The N_B_L Prize

I've heard tell that Biblical Hebrew has no vowels. I learned today that the President of the World won a prize for talking about Hope and Change. The N_B_L Prize. I looked it up in the Bible. I Samuel 25:25. 'Nuff said.

Today's twisty thinking looped around the commonality of fraud in our society. Strangely enough, the sequence of neuronal activity began with a statement by a spokesman for someone whom I respect quite a bit for his clear insight into spiritual matters. The statement that "For a gift of any amount we will send you ..." triggered musing about fraudulent activity by those who purport that honesty is the only policy they will subscribe to.

I realize that the writing of books is a serious and time consuming process, and I fully respect the concept of wanting to be paid for one's labors. I also respect and defend the idea that a person may sell his property for any amount which the market might bear, or even give it away, as he so chooses. While I have not sent that particular person any "gifts", I have sent donations to other such entities (without any expectation of a "gift" in return), and have received a receipt from the donee for tax deduction purposes.

IRS regulations require that when claiming a deduction for a charitable or other non-profit or political contribution, if any item of value has been received in return, the Fair Market Value of that item must be disclosed on the receipt, and only the amount of the donation greater than the value of the item given to the donor can be claimed as a deductible contribution. Well and good.

That Fair Market Value can often be easily established because the item returned to the donor as a gift is an item regularly sold by the donee. In any event, by IRS standards, a "gift" that is received in return for a solicited "contribution" of money is an exchange. Any amount above the Market Price of the item is then recognized by the IRS as a contribution. However, if the exchange takes place on acceptance of a "gift of any amount", the possibility exists that the donor will receive a "gift" worth more than what he "gave" for it. Such an exchange leaves the donor with what is clearly a taxable gain by IRS standards.

In fact, when the solicitation leads a donor to believe that he is getting a "gift" in return for his donation, should the donee actually give the item at no cost to someone who has made no contribution, and then turn around and report on the IRS-required receipt that the value of the "gift" is $X.xx to the donor responding to the solicitation, the donee has clearly lied to the publican. By IRS standards, if the item can be obtained for free, its Market Value is $0.00, but if the Market Value is truly $X.xx and he has given it away, then the only equitable course of action is to inform the person getting the item that he has just been given a "gift" the value of which must be reported on his income tax form as taxable income.

Just as evil is the situation for the person who gave a "gift of any amount". If the item to be given in return is actually worth $0.00 because it can be had for free by somebody who has no money to give, then any Market Value stated on the receipt defrauds the donor of a possible tax deduction amount.

Similarly, when a church holds a fund-raising dinner and there is a "suggested donation" amount indicated for the meal, only the amount donated that is above the "suggested donation" is legally tax deductible for the donor, and technically, if such a meal is given free to someone who cannot afford the "suggested donation", the "suggested donation" amount is taxable income to the poor person.

Aha, says you, Grandpa Jim is a LEGALIST without care for the unfortunate. Such accusers may well deserve the N_B_L Prize. To lawyer one's way around the IRS regulations is legalism at its finest.

My position is simply this : a "gift" should be given with no expectation of anything in return.

The bottom line is that when you sign that income tax return, you state that everything you wrote down in it is true. In order to fill it out properly, you have to follow the directions that came with it, and accept the definitions that the government uses for the questions and statements on the form. Anyone who signs the form using their own definitions and not altering the form to insert those definitions, is a liar.

Of course, some brave soul might cross off the affidavit just above his signature on the tax return. That produces other kinds of problems. Honesty may be expensive and inconvenient, but when the people of any nation set aside their individual integrity, that nation is ripe for judgment.

2009 has Fall-en

'Tis Fall of '09. The summer is gone. So is most of the garden. I have been eating the Golden Delicious apples for the past week or so (somebody has to know when they are ripe, and I elected myself Chief Ripeness Tester) and tonight I decided to pick the tree clean. The yellowjackets are running out of other things to eat and they were starting to make some serious holes in the apples. Ergo, I picked.

The front basket has apples that the yellowjackets had attacked.
This is the second crop that this dwarf tree has produced. The year before last it had a dozen or so apples, and last year had nary a bloom, but this year it bloomed heavily. I was unable to spray after mid-July due to rains at the wrong time and my long commute eating up over 3 hours of each day, but the apples are relatively bug free.

And they are indeed delicious.

Rooster Tales

Just a quickie before I have to settle down to some serious work.

About two weeks ago, I was verifiying the tax card on a house in Middlefield. As I pulled in the driveway, I could hear a rooster crowing on the adjacent property. Exiting the car, I was taking some notes (vacant house, looked like it was in less than average condition, etc) when I noticed a Barred Rock rooster sneak out of the bushes and begin to circle me. Head held low, it crept around to examine what it had found. Then, like a Jurrasic Park velociraptor, it charged.

As it neared my legs, I flipped down my clipboard and knocked it to the side. This was repeated about a half dozen times.

Finally, I decided that I had to get on with my work, took out the measuring wheel, and ran it on the ground in the direction of the rooster. He fled into the bushes and did not return. People he understood -- my guess is that he had lots of experience with them running in terror at his attacks. The wheel, however, was an unknown, may have represented a predator like a big cat, as it crept along the ground, and was something to avoid.

Two morals to this story. One : bullies only pick on people they are certain to intimidate. Two : roosters are far more effective for area defense than the average dog.

I would hate to face a rooster the size of the average dog.

...

Obstructionist : a lemming who refuses to hurry.

Auld Lang Syne

T'other day I received an email from Joe Harrison stating that the date of the CG Reunion had been changed to August 15, and querying if I could make that date. While I had plans already for later in the day, I quickly made sure I could spend a few hours with the old guys.

Maybe I should start near the beginning. There are times when it makes sense to go through a wallet and remove stuff that really no longer needs to be there. Such an item is my draft card. It has been over 26 years since I was legally required to carry it, so it is time it went into the drawer with a lot of other old stuff.



One of the things that people who haven't seen me since high school notice is that I am no longer 5 feet 8 inches tall and 120 pounds. In fact, if they remember me at all, it is as the kid who was only 5 feet 2 and wrestled at 98 pounds in his junior year. The draft registration card shows that I was still in the growth spurt, and, in fact, when I started my sophomore year at Akron U, the ROTC Department had to reissue my dress greens because I had grown out of the set they had issued the year before.

The 1-H classification was issued after I notified the board that I had gotten married. Viet Nam was winding down, and they were not likely to bother me again.

When I registered, in 1965, I was given a 2-S deferment. ROTC was mandatory for male students at Akron U then, and I simply took what they stuck me in, which was Army ROTC. Just after the Spring 1966 semester began, I was on campus one Saturday and ran into a bunch of guys in fatigues, doing PT in the snow and drill with real M-1s. One thing led to another and I ended up in the Counterguerilla Unit. When Spring Break came, instead of going to Florida, I found myself in the woods eating Tom Hastler's cooking.


Carefull!! That is a 23 meg + .pdf !!

Of course, some 43 years later, we all look a bit different :



So we sat around swapping condensed versions of our life stories since graduation. Eddie treated us to a demonstration of the fact that he still knew how to field strip and reassemble an M-1. Not quite 8 seconds any more. Not quite. He did avoid "M-1 thumb", though.

Was ROTC useful? I think so. Cadets were taught to say "Yes, Sir" and "No, Sir", and that only a woman would wear a hat inside a building. They were taught to polish their shoes and tie their ties. They were taught the difference between their left foot and their right foot, and how to walk with other people without tangling up their legs. These are all useful skills for college graduates (or even high school graduates -- Eddie teaches ROTC at Garfield High in Akron) and it is amazing how many people complete a college degree without knowledge of such simple civilizing graces. The jungle always encroaches when civilization retreats.

Chicken Wars!

Saturday is a kick-back day sometimes. Today, I had nothing that was screaming "URGENT!" in my mind, so I was slow to get out of the rack. Thus it was that I was jolted from semi-slumber by the phone call at 6:15 AM from Cousin X ( the X is the chromosome identifier, and I won't go any further than that ) to inform me that she and her family were moving, and to give me their new address. It seems their prior landlord would not fix a problem with the apartment, so they had to find a new place. Also, would I please call her sister and let her know they had moved?

Frankly, I'm a bit flattered that I rank so high in her pecking order, even if it left me shaking my head over the timing of the call. Somehow, the incident led me to thinking about groceries ( at this point, I don't think we will take them any, since she didn't request help, and on top of that, I didn't ask since I was still not thinking too clearly due to my somnia ). If you don't like my invention of new words, too bad. Besides, she has my phone number. Anyhoo, the incident fired my neurons and soon I was off on a rabbit trail regarding food, and I eventually recalled an article in the local rag about a state-wide ballot issue the Humane Society is pushing to force farmers to supply bigger cages for their livestock.

The trail began with the phone call, leaped to the blog posts I was planning to do regarding the return on investment from rental properties, hopped over to my data gathering at the Geauga County Fairgrounds, bounced around the concept of value in use, acknowledged that I needed to get information on the local cost of boarding horses, briefly touched on the costs of veterinary treatment ( because I am going to ultimately have to try to develop value opinions for a couple of vet hospitals ), ricocheted off the dangers of parasites in pastureland, flip-flopped to the fact that local produce is probably more dangerous than Mexican imports, and sat down on the cage article. If you attempt to psychoanalyze me, I guarantee to drive you crazy.

In previous posts, I went into some detail regarding parasitic worms that affect people. I am much impressed by the existence of parasitic worms, because in Beauval we had many graphic lessons, from doggy doo to fish for the table, which made us wary of trusting food in its most natural state. There are quite a few people in our land who are strict vegetarians, and many who think the best way to serve food is raw. They are entitled to their opinions, and I have no desire to force them to eat otherwise. I am quite aware, however, that gastric discomfort can result from something as simple as drinking water from a well that one has never used before, and I have experienced diarrhea from sampling veggie trays at parties. In fact, the first couple of salads fresh from my own garden are likely to trigger funny stuff if the produce isn't cleaned well.

Grazing animals are particularly subject to parasitic organisms that spend part of their life cycle in low-lying vegetation. Watercress eaters probably have liver flukes, and I suspect that most vegetarians are skinnier than the population at large, not because of the lack of fat in their diet, but, because of their internal zoo which shares their nutrient supply. Trichina in pork was once a problem in this country, but after pigs began to be kept in smaller pens and couldn't free-range and eat rats and mice that hosted the intermediate stages, the disease practically disappeared. Chickens are also omnivores ( T. rex with feathers ) and if they get a chance, they will eat any rodent that crosses their pen -- we used to catch mice and throw them into the middle of the chicken yard and watch the action.

All the arguments about how good-tasting free-range livestock is tends to ignore the fact that part of the good taste comes from the stuff that buzzards eat. I would be willing to put money on the idea that free-range chickens and pigs (and cows and sheep and goats ) have worms that can be passed on to their eaters. That is not a gamble, because it is almost 100% certain. So we come to cages, and whether or not they are cruel.

Many of the Humane-ists see nothing wrong with keeping their dog or cat in the house. That is cruel, because both are hunting animals that need to roam and kill in order to be mentally well adjusted. Further, dogs are pack animals, and have a social need to be with other dogs. They think humans are poor substitutes for dogs, a fact which is easily shown as soon as they come into proximity with another of their own species -- they immediately sniff anuses. In addition, to neuter them is to deprive the male dog or cat of the joy of procreation and the female dog or cat of the satisfaction of maternity; such neutering is cruel in the extreme. Nevertheless, these same people would argue that keeping a laying hen in a cage so small it could barely turn about in, for the purpose of safety and hygiene, is cruel.

The chicken in a cage has controlled feed -- no wild critters in its provender to give it worms. It is kept clean -- no straw to collect chicken dumpings, since the mess drops through the bottom screens and gets taken away. It is safe -- no chicken hawks threatening from above, no skunks, raccoons, or dogs on the ground, and no peers to harass. I did forget to mention, didn't I, that chickens are known for their cannibalism? They have a pecking order. You put them in a flock, in the chicken yard with all kinds of room to roam, and they will establish the pecking order. Bottom ranking hen gets pecked by everyone else. She gets her feathers pulled out. Woe be to her if she starts to bleed, because at that point the whole flock will attack and eat her. She is much better off in the cage.

As a matter of fact, the optimum cage size is just the size of the chicken. She can sit or stand, and being very stupid, has no need to turn around, since the feed only goes in one end, and the eggs come out the other, and if the chicken turns around, there will be disaster in the cage. Farmers are not only smart, they are practical. Those are two characteristics that are underdeveloped in the Humane-ists.

Prior to Walt Disney and his anthropomorphic mice, attitudes toward animals tended to be realistic. Those who have been brainwashed into thinking that Bambi, the Snow White menagerie, and other cartoon animals represent reality have forgotten the facts of nature. Abuse is defined by society, and the definition will vary from place to place. In essence, it is a religious argument. Animal worship is a subset of human self-worship. Love me, love my dog. I am an absolutely irritating philosopher, am I not?

They Are Back

I haven't seen much of our local deer since spring. Then, while in the garden this evening, ...



A loner. Probably a buck. Season doesn't open until 9-26. I'm gonna need a crossbow for this job.

While I wish I could use the SMLE, it scares me. Houses behind the garden. I'm not too worried about a miss; its just that a deer isn't too "thick". Even a soft-point coming out the other side could be dangerous, and the black bear was "thick" and still had a decent exit hole. And I remember Chuck's rabbit. The one that was hiding behind the telephone pole, with just a fringe of hair sticking up. And the shot that went through the telephone pole and turned him into a yard wide hasenpfeffer. Even if that was a full metal jacket round. Old Smiley has a lot of oomph.

Gotta get a crossbow. And I have to fix the shed loft so it makes a comfy blind.

Radishculous!

We bought our beet seed at Copley Feed this year. Detroit Dark Reds. Shortly after it was planted, I noted that one of the sprouts looked a bit strange -- too green among beet greens tinged with red. Sunday I went out to pull a few (have to thin them, you know) and I decided that the oddball would be the first victim. As I bent to pull it, I was flabbergasted by size of the root. I pulled, and out came a monstrosity.



It was a radish. I wish my father-in-law could have seen this one! Despite the size, it was tender and relatively sweet inside. Usually big radishes are stringy and vilely "hot". We have been slicing it and using it; one slice covers a half slice of bread.



My regret is that I didn't leave it to go to seed. This one could get the Darwin Award for sure. Maybe I can clone it -- make the top sprout roots. Maybe.

Indian Country

Joonyah and I were talking about old times and we decided to visit Beauval again. Our ticket was provided by Google maps. Thirty years ago, this was home. The Canadian Department of Indian and Northern Affairs paid me to teach in this lovely backwater, and provided housing at a nominal cost. We left in 1980 because the Government of Saskatchewan would not allow me to keep my teaching certificate unless I became a Canadian citizen. When we left, the school and its grounds had just been turned over to the English River Band.

The old residential school building is no longer standing. The shop down by the river, where I rebuilt my truck engine, is gone. The hockey rink, which was lovingly maintained by both students and staff, is no more. Joonyah pointed out that the old school bus still seems to be parked in the back, though. Some of the best years of our lives were spent in this isolated (at that time) backwater. The memories of what was then still make me a bit homesick, but I think we left at the right time.



------------------


This is a better shot that I stole from somebody's web page. My biology / chemistry lab was in the low section of the new addition on the far right. That is Lac La Plonge in the distance.

It seems the residence shut down in 1983, just 3 years after we left. We definitely left at the right time.