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.

All I Want for Christmas is a Kevlar Vest…

How come so many people want to shoot me? Am I not the most lovable guy known to those who have met me?

I was warned that in the data collection phase, there had been some incidents in Newbury that warranted sending in a new face. For about two months I traversed that township doing the review, visiting every home (almost like Santa Claus, but no presents, and I stayed far from the chimneys). Everyone I met was either friendly or neutral, with the exception of one fellow last week who firmly insisted that I had to leave his property (he was having a war with Zoning, and anything that looked like Official Business was unwelcome). That I could live with -- the aerial photos are good enough that you do NOT want to be sunbathing when the plane flies over!

Yesterday I finished Newbury. Today I started in on the south side of Bainbridge. Things were going smoothly. I pulled into one driveway on Pettibone Road, where the sign on the garage said, "If you can read this, you are in range." I've seen plenty of those. Most of the people who post that sign are friendly as long as you knock on the door. I had a pleasant chat with the lady who answered the door -- I had to get out because her house had a deck on the back that was not on the tax card sketch -- and then drove to the next driveway.

It was one of those houses like any other house. Piece of cake. There were, however, some strange signs posted on the house. Nothing threatening, but sort of nutty. I didn't need to leave the car. I jotted a few notes on the tax card, turned around, and drove to the next house.

I was about a half mile away, maybe a half hour later, when my phone rang. It was Nedra, at the office, abrupt and hurried, "When you get to such-and-such address on Pettibone Road, do not pull into the driveway."

"I've already been there."

She sounded worried. "Don't go back, not even to turn around or do any paperwork."

"I don't plan to go back. I don't need to go back."

"The owner called and said you were trespassing on his property. He said that if you pulled into his driveway again, he would shoot you."

"I didn't even see him. All I did was pull into the driveway, take some notes, turn around, and leave." (My practice is to get out and introduce myself if anyone appears at a window or door).

"Well, don't go back. He obviously saw the signs on the car, because he knew where to call."

An hour or so later I decided to drive to McDonalds for a cup of coffee. As I passed his house, the man was at the mailbox getting his mail. He gave me a strange look as I went by. Must have left his gun at the house.

Somehow guys like that worry me a little. The fellow in Parkman who tried to chase me off his neighbor's property, threatened to call the Sheriff, and told the Sheriff's dispatcher that he should have shot me, did not seem like a real threat. He was loud and visible, and obviously his threat was in the past tense -- "I should have…". Same thing for the old farmer in Huntsburg; it came out in the course of conversation, and I took it as a joke. Somebody who would hide inside a house threatening future action is a different flavor fruitcake.

I just hope nobody else with a black car pulls into his driveway to turn around.

Maybe I need a light bar to make the car more distinct. Low profile amber lights. That would be fun. As it is, people hit their brakes when they see me sitting in a driveway.

Come to think of it, some of the Sheriff's cruisers, like the one that pulled up behind me yesterday as I sat on the roadside shuffling paper (flashers ON!) and turned on his lights before he saw the side of the car, are small and look similar to my car -- but we do have different color signage (they have gold, I have red, white, and blue) on the sides. (Bainbridge police cruisers are bigger and have white signage).

And I think that Mr. Hospitality can expect a visit from one of those black cars sometime soon. if he hasn't had one already.

***FOOTNOTE***
I wrote this last Friday, and delayed publishing it because I was uncertain what follow-up actions had been taken. I've been told a police report was filed, so its a public record now. I've also been told that the incident report shows the irate caller had a limited vocabulary but no speech impediment with respect to the "ph" sound. Anyway, the pen is mightier than the sword, and I carry a 0.7 mm semi-automatic pencil …

"Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."

This morning Bro. Reini Webel took his text from Mark 2:1-12. As I listened, I was drawn to the fact that in almost every instance of Jesus' healing, a statement is made regarding the forgiveness of sins.

Let it be abundantly clear that I do not believe that illness is a punishment for sin, although it may be a consequence. There is a difference. Scripture informs us that the same event happens to both the just and the unjust.

We are told in the Gospel that the primary message of Jesus was, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." That message is predicated on the concept that all men are sinners, falling short of the righteousness of God. It is therefore no surprise (although the connection may be / has been missed by the casual reader of the Gospels) that the underlying purpose of the healing ministry of Jesus was to reinforce the idea that He was capable of forgiving sins, and, ergo, that He was God incarnate.

The discourse reads, (6) "But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, (7) 'Why does this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?'"

This was precisely the teachable moment Jesus was seeking -- (8) "And immediately when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, He said unto them , 'Why reason ye these things in your hearts?' [Transliterated, "You're on the right track, there, Bubbas -- only God can forgive sins."] (9) 'Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?'" ["Talk is cheap, fellas. I'll put my money where my mouth is."]

(10) "'But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins,' ["Let me show you that not only are you correct about Who can forgive sins, but you must also believe the corollary … "] (He saith to the sick of the palsy,) (11) 'I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.'"

(12) "And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed [You betcha!], and glorified God, saying, 'We never saw it on this fashion.'" ["Did you see that, Clyde? He has us over a barrel now!"]

So, you ask, what is the link between healing and faith and sickness and sin? James gives us a clue [actually, much more than a clue ] when he writes, (5:14) "Is any sick [asthenia] among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: (15) and the prayer of faith shall save [ sozo, not therapeuo] the sick [kamno] , and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (16) Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

There is the nub of the problem. The sickness may not have been caused by sin, but sin is endemic to the human race. The passage in James does not refer specifically to an issue of disease (although most translators and their readers have preferred to view it that way) but could also broadly apply to any area of weakness, physical or spiritual. The emphasis is on acknowledgment of sin, confession, and repentance -- "for the Kingdom of God is at hand."

The application is as thorny today as it was twenty centuries ago, and even farther back. Jesus could have preached from 2 Chronicles 7:22-39 & 8:14 -- Solomon's plea -- that if his people would sin (he gets very specific about calamities which could cause the people to suspect that they were being punished for wrongdoing) and repent, that God would accept their prayer, maintain their cause, and grant them forgiveness -- is answered by the Lord,

"If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Unfortunately, in order to believe that forgiveness is available, that restoration to fellowship with God can be obtained, that we can be healed of whatever it is that troubles us, we must first also be willing to believe that we are in need of forgiveness.

In September 2001, the United States was already in deep trouble. Socially, morally, and economically, the nation was at a fork in the road. Then on the 11th of that month, disaster struck. The President called for a day of prayer. Unfortunately he did not call for a time of repentance.

Without doubt such an act would have been unpopular. In the common mind, people are essentially good, and when disaster strikes, the work of wicked men must be avenged. The Christian concept that all have sinned, without exception, and that it is by the grace of God that we exist -- the Divine Providence so wondrously regarded by the Founding Fathers -- has long been gone from the national conscience. A call to repentance would have been viewed by the larger part of the population (and even the rest of the world) as an admission that the World Trade Center attacks were in some way a consequence of sin.

That such a misconception could exist in the United States can be laid squarely upon those who call themselves Christians. Had the pastors and teachers in the churches been presenting the true Gospel, that ALL (without exception) have sinned, that Jesus paid with His own blood the price of our reconciliation with God, and that He continues to call all people to repentance from their sin, there might have been a willingness at the moment of need to confess the idolatry, disrespect for law, adultery, murder, theft, and covetousness that permeates our society.

Instead, there has been from the nation's pulpits tacit and even overt admiration for :

• the glorification of "heroes" of all stripes,
• the glorification of humanity instead of the glorification of the Creator,
• civil disobedience without an expectation of personal consequences,
• divorce and remarriage,
• homosexual activity and heterosexual promiscuity,
• abortion,
• condemnation of the innocent based on statistical constructs,
• authorities stealing from one group to give to another,
• admiration for business practices that harm the poor and ignorant,

and the list could go on.

It is not an accident that those who are opposed to God are also opposed to God's people boldly labeling behavior that is contrary to Scripture as sin. They are thus willing to persecute believers, whether by legal or illegal means. The Church has failed in its mission in America, and can only win back the high ground through bloody martyrdom -- believers surrendering their lives that others might live.

Revival in America will come when we crave the words, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."

Slanted News -- Shilling for Obama is Fun

Yesterday I read a CNN headline that said a CBS poll showed a majority of Americans favored the nude body scans and genital groping techniques that TSA is using. Within a CBS article about the poll "Poll: Do New TSA Airport Screens Go Too Far?" it was stated that "a new CBS News Poll released Monday found 81 percent of Americans think airports should use these new machines -- including a majority of both men and women, Americans of all age groups, and Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Fifteen percent said airports should not use them."

So I looked at the polls. Not only did they show that BOTH CNN and CBS were lying, the polls have some glaring deficiencies in their design. The primary deficiency is a failure to ask if the participant actually intends to fly. If they do not, then their responses are similar to asking a well-fed American if it is morally right for starving Africans to eat an animal that is a member of an endangered species.

So here are the polls and their responses.

The CBS poll:

...and its response:

The CNN poll:

...and its response:

Obviously people who read CNN (liberals, mostly) feel differently than people who read CBS (just brain-dead sheeple, mostly).

Again, these polls (did you note CNN's disclaimer?) are silly if they do not include a breakdown of the numbers of people who actually intend to risk their lives on an airplane.

Don't fall for headlines, whether Drudge, CNN, Fox, or CBS. Read widely, take it with a spoonful of salt, and while you may have a strong dislike of Mormonism, Glenn Beck's admonition to stock up on a food cache still makes sense.

I'm going out to dig the rest of my potatoes. SEE! I USED AN "e". IN YOUR FACE, REPORTERS! POTATOE!! TOMATOE!! I'M STANDING WITH DAN QUAYLE!

Flashbacks

It is wonderfully strange how the mind can leap from one thing to another faster than Superman. As I fossilize, my mind regurgitates memories in streams of the bygone, triggered by the most unlikely events.

This morning I rolled north on 21 to Montrose and at the I-77 merge it became evident that somebody had been practicing for the Darwin Award -- traffic was backed up across the Medina Road bridge. I made a quick decision to go around (knowing it was a gamble and that just patiently staying in line would eventually get me through) and exited westbound, then went north on Crystal Lake to Granger and over to Cleveland-Massilon.

Just north of the Shade Road intersection my memory was triggered by the Flower Hutch building; that used to be the site of an orchard. Then I remembered how the State Highway Patrol used to sit there to clock cars coming over the hill from the north. Then I remembered Dad driving us north to pick up the Turnpike on the way to Harrow.

The thought of the Turnpike triggered memories of other roads -- Medina Road, old Route 18, with its roller-coaster hills. Then the sudden recollection that it was only after the Turnpike opened in 1955 that we used Old 21.

Late 1950's, Dad taking us north in the old 1955 Chrysler -- the car I would learn to drive in, and which we drove back and forth from Patch Rubber Company when we worked there together. That old blue Chrysler, that ended it's career in the Demolition Derby at Barberton Speedway in 1969.

Trips to Harrow, stopping at the roadside park on Route 51 west of Elmore. The summer of 1959, when I stayed with Uncle John and Aunt Mary Miklovic and they took me to see the Brittania on it's Canadian cruise at the inauguration of the Saint Lawrence Seaway (I was intrigued by the fact that the masts had to be hinged so the yacht could pass under some of the bridges).

All triggered by the careless driving of The Unknown Motorist.

Ah, Dad. You left us 5 years ago today. Before you left, though, you made a lot of memories.

Huh? No Comment?

Wonder why Google won't comment?


You Tube Yanks Islamic Cleric's Jihad Sermon Videos

Google, as a private entity, has every right to control comment on its sites. What is suspicious is the timing of this censorship.

Sick Semper Tyrannosaurus

What is this plot by the British to control free speech in the United States? Undoubtedly the American media is too busy with election results to post the following:

White House Must Shut Down Hate Videos on You Tube

In it, we read that, "Baroness Neville-Jones, the security minister, called on President Barack Obama's administration to 'take down this hateful material' in cases where servers were based in the US. She said websites that 'incite cold-blooded murder' would 'categorically not be allowed in the UK'". As well, we read, "The Home Office confirmed yesterday that pressure was being put on the White House to remove the sermons. A spokesman for the US State Department would say only that it had 'significant legal authorities' to act 'where activities on the internet pose a clear threat to the public'".

Two hundred thirty some years ago 13 colonial legislatures and their armies rejected the things that would not be allowed in the UK.

Once upon a time, in a newly formed nation that styled itself The United States of America, the representatives of the people put forward a Constitution that was designed to prevent the government from having power over the people. One of the first things the young nation did was reinforce the chains on government by instituting a law that Congress -- the only authority in the United States which could legitimately pass rules for all the people of all the States -- "shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …"

Freedom is at best an uncomfortable luxury. It requires the exercise of responsibility, both personal and communal. A free people must practice self control, and self denial, of desires to force others to view thoughts, expressions, and events in the same manner as does the majority. Personal freedom is the antithesis of democracy.

In the desire to be comfortable we, as a nation, have sunk to pitiful degradation of our liberties in that we commonly discuss what are viewed as necessary restrictions on speech. Congress has seen fit to put limits on political speech through "campaign finance reform", and on unpleasant -- perhaps humiliating or aggravating or frightening to the hearers -- speech through "regulation of hate speech". Let it be remembered that no man is free unless all are free; free to believe and express their beliefs freely no matter how offensive the expression.

The only legitimate limitation we have historically placed on the freedom of expression is the requirement that each person be responsible for his or her actions. In the Christian tradition, each individual makes the decision to carry out a good or an evil deed. "The Devil made me do it" is not a valid defense before the Judgement Seat of God, and was never held to be a valid defense by our Founding Fathers. The Paganization of America has brought us to the point where it is acceptable to think that someone or something else is responsible for a person's lack of self control.

If indeed a "spokesman for the US State Department would say only that it had 'significant legal authorities' to act 'where activities on the internet pose a clear threat to the public'", then that spokesman has committed treason against the Constitution of the United States by giving them "Aid and Comfort" (Article 4, Section 3) and needs to be punished by Congress as stated in that section. No such "significant legal authorities" exist in our Constitution.

The mutterings and screechings of Al Quaeda may be incitement to mayhem when weak-minded people listen to them. The British Members of Parliament, however, have every power under their own laws to cut off access to You Tube in Great Britain. That they are too cowardly to do so against the wishes of their constituencies is no reason for the government of the United States to violate its own charter of legitimacy.

Aunt Sue's Obituary

Requiem for Rich

In 1950 my Dad contracted to have a new house built at 1171 Dover Avenue in Akron. We moved there with my new baby brother John; I vaguely remember the open fields across the street. In 1952 the lot directly across from us sprouted a new house, and I met the boy who moved in there -- Richard Robart Wimer.

Rich and I became good friends. We walked to and from Schumacher School together most days. Because of Rich, I remember the elections of 1952. Rich was rooting for Stevenson, but I liked Ike. We stopped by the voting booths that used to sit near the water towers (those are long gone, even!!) and warmed ourselves next to the coal-fired heaters inside.

Summers often found us "camping out". Rich had an old army surplus wall tent that we would set up in the lot (we called it "the field") next to his house, and we would tell scary stories until we fell asleep. We occasionally rode our bikes on distant adventures, riding to Fairlawn to "Wolf Cave" in what is now the Frank Boulevard Park, or to go swimming at White Pond.

Summers also brought out all the other kids who had nothing to do. Rich and I and a few other kids on our street formed the Dover Gang. We had occasional "wars" with the Winton Gang and the Hardesty Gang, in which "wars" we lined up and threw green apples at each other. That is where I learned the magic of the applestick, which could extend my throwing range significantly.

One summer the Dover Gang joined forces with the Winton Gang and the Hardesty Gang to do battle with the Hartford gang. Somebody in the Hardesty Gang had a contraption they called a "nail machine gun" which was spring powered and would shoot nails. It was mounted on a small platform in a tree on a vacant corner lot. Since I was the smallest kid on the block, I was chosen to climb the tree and guard the gun while the others went off to hunt for the Hartford gang.

While they were gone, the lady in the house diagonally across the intersection called the police. When the cruiser arrived, I slithered down the tree and ran around the block to find the guys but they had completely disappeared. Later Rich told me that they had found the Hartford Gang and went somewhere to play baseball.

The summer between second and third grade I found a new friend -- a girl who lived a block away on Hardesty. The details of that summer are a bit fuzzy, since I was mostly into cowboys and Indians, and hunting frogs and crayfish in Mud Run where it used to run through the woods at the northeast and northwest corners of Diagonal and Hawkins. She had a girlfriend she would bring to my back yard, and they wanted to play house and telegraph. When she told us that she was moving to Toledo, I was relieved.

Too soon. As we walked to school on what was to be her last day in Akron, she announced that she wanted to kiss me good-bye. I tried to run, but Rich grabbed me -- he was a lot bigger than I was -- and held me down while she kissed me. I sat there and cried, madder about the betrayal than the kiss. Rich thought it was funny.

That was our relationship. Like brothers, mad at each other one day, and eager to share adventures the next. Then, in 1959, the Wimer family moved to Copley. Dad and Mom took us to their new house that fall, and Rich introduced me to Mike and Andy Wineberg. In a few months, our new house was under construction right across the street from the Wimer's house, and I started 9th grade at Copley in 1960. Dad had to drive me to and from school for a few weeks until we were able to move in.

Rich and Mike built a small plywood "cabin" about a hundred feet from the Barberton Reservoir, and it was frequently used by all of us for sleep-outs and as a base for overnight fishing trips or skinny-dipping parties. It was heated in winter with an old army surplus woodstove, and there were bunks built against the walls. The door had a padlock, and the window was a chunk of hinged plywood.

Rich graduated from high school in 1964 and I followed the next year. He was drafted and was sent to Viet Nam. While there, he wrote me a letter describing his work as a boat driver on the Mekong River. He also was awarded the Soldier's Medal, but he never spoke of it, and I would love to be able to find the citation.

We drifted apart. When we lived in Edmonton, Rich stopped by on his way up the Alaska Highway. He had had a breakdown, and we were able to locate a car dealership that could handle the warranty work that was needed. After we moved back here, Rich and I occasionally crossed paths, but we never really spent any significant amount of time together.

On Labor Day, Rich and his wife went camping. He was not feeling well. Things got worse, and when he got home on Wednesday, he was admitted to the hospital. Exploratory surgery was done on Thursday; the doctors found that his appendix had burst and peritonitis had destroyed him. Rich never woke up; the ventilator was disconnected last Friday morning. He will be buried tomorrow.

Farewell, old friend.