Jerusalem Peace

“Nattering nabobs of negatism,” was a phrase popularized, if not coined, by Spiro T. Agnew. Evidently William Safire originated the phrase. (ASIDE: The Press and Democrats hated him more than Nixon, so he served as a buffer between Richard Nixon and impeachment. Then Agnew got caught with his hand out, in a continuation of the extortionistic practices carried over from his term as Governor of Maryland and himself was impeached and removed from office.) Back to nattering nabobs.

A multitude have joined the chorus of decrying the United States’ President’s long overdue move to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel, and to relocate our embassy there. I have not seen any other UN member having been “guided” and then derided for placing its capital anywhere it wants to do so. But somehow the meddling merchants of mendacity in New York feel that it is their purview to instruct the Nation of Israel in the placement of its capital.

Our own nattering nabobs, here and around the world are decrying the irreparable damage done to “peace in the Middle East.” This is not my analysis, but I had thought of it. The Middle East is a boiling pot of unrest, instability, and outright war from Turkey on the north, to Iran in the east, to Saudi Arabia in the south to Lybia in central Africa. Only Jordan is relatively untouched by violence and terrorism, and its status is not overly stable.

So when the harping harridans of hopelessness harangue the President and the United States for destabilizing the Middle East, we can wonder what they have been smoking. Is it the famous hashish of Turkish and Arabian tales and legends? There is no peace there, so what can the recognition and move “upset?”

The vaunted “land for peace” initiative(s) have failed to produce any peace. In fact, I heard recently that Yassar Arafat said, and the record seems to bear this out, if he did not explicitly voice this phrase: “The Palestinians would force Israel out of the land by one thousand slices of land for peace.” The reality has been that none of the renunciations of terrorism, followed by land grants actually led to a tangible peace.

So the President has taken a bold stance to do what the American people, and Congress mandated back in 1995. Do you recall any other legislation whose implementation began over two decades after being passed and signed into Law?

Good job, President Trump. It’s about time.

Just Random Thoughts

A mayor in Germany was stabbed in the neck by a thug who disagreed with the mayor’s ideas on immigration. Ironically, the victim was saved by a fast thinking kebab shop owner, an immigrant incidentally.

Supposedly protesting the importation of “terrorists,” a “loyal” German became a terrorist and was countered by a peace and life-loving immigrant. Can it get any more incredible?

Page 2. A lady in Virginia hit “something” as she left home for work, but did not check the front of her car until she arrived at her destination 50 miles away. Upon walking around to the front, she was “greeted” by an angry hiss. A bobcat had been trapped in the grill of the car.

Animal control sedated the wildcat and removed it. It will be returned to the crossroads where it was originally struck. Can’t you imagine the conversation with her compatriots?

“You will ever guess where I have been and how I got there....” Talk about “Mr. Frog’s Wild Ride.”

Page 3. I had a dream the other night about a clandestine security force whose task is to surreptitiously guard sensitive installations and facilities. They do not wish to be publicly identified or even associated with the facility proper. And the property cannot be linked with their activities for the purpose of lawsuits and other such retaliatory events.

They also focus on “deterring” repeat incursions by the trespassers without leaving any evidence of the interaction. (If you get my meaning.) Their motto is, “We leave no marks, but make a lasting impression.”

Outta my head. In two ways.

Page 4. I shoulda been a liberal arts major, like sociology or political science. No hard facts to remember and laws which control reactions. A prof at a Florida University (unnamed for now) has developed a new class: White Racism.

Silly me. I thought that educational institutions had a curriculum of history, science, and things like that which were amenable to measurement or documentation. World Wars I and II, the Korean War, VietNam, Desert Storm, and all of those events can be documented. But to teach a class on “attitudes and prejudices” seems a little less rigorous than General Physics, Organic Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics, and Medieval Art. How will he grade the class? Do you have to parrot his prejudice back to him or can you roam the field?

Oh, wait. He is not prejudiced. He is pointing out others’ prejudices. (Remember the old “three fingers point back” rule?)

Page 5. Remembering old times. I played basketball in high school and had a great time. I just recently connected with a cousin of mine who also played on that same team. I recently bought a new pair of sweat/lounge/sleep pants and as I admired them I recalled an incident from that ball team.

A bit of background. There were three “big” men in our area and conference. One guy who stood 6'4 and attended a big, Class B school about 50 miles north of Stratton. Another guy closer to home, whom we played two or three times a year, was 6'5. And our champion was 6'6, the tallest one of all. So we had in interesting competition with those three schools, as I believe that all three were in the same class. But we were the smallest school.

When we were sophomores we ran into them, probably at a tournament. We had some fairly new, but pedestrian warm up jackets that we were proud of. Well, these guys came out of the locker room with complete, new, flashy warmup UNIFORMS. I recall their pants swishing around their ankles as they raced through their warm up routine. They looked like the Harlem Globetrotters. We all were mesmerized.

The coach noticed our fascination with their warmups and quickly gathered us together to take our minds off of their intimidating procedure and clothes. “Hey guys,” he encouraged us. “They put their pants on and take them off, one leg at a time, just like we do. They will only have five guys on the floor. We can take them.”

We all glanced at our big guy and sighed a little bit of relief. At least, they would not be playing too far above our heads. As we huddled before the tip off, he reiterated, “One leg at a time.”

About that time, they took hold of their belts and “whoosh!” jerked them off in a single motion. I don’t know if they were velcro or snaps, but it was impressive.

As I recall, we did not ever beat that team. It was not their pants. They had five guys (Hey, that would be a good name for a burger joint) ...five guys who were better than our five. But I still hoped we would prevail. I bet we could beat them now. NOT.

So when I hear that people take off their pants one leg at a time, I smile.

SCOTUS case on prayer

You might want to join me in prayer about religious freedom.

https://www.afa.net/activism/action-alerts/2017/11/religious-freedom-on-trial-pray-for-jack-phillips-and-the-us-supreme-court/

Now and Later (A Tail of Two Battery--Problems)

There is a candy called “Now and Later.” It is a concept that you get a little treat now and wait for the rest. Well, I just had an episode of “Now and Later” with the battery in our Honda. (Shameless product placement.) But this is a good example. We had trouble “now” but avoided the later  part.  (Ed question: Does anyone really only consume half of the candy? Most of the time, in my experience, the portions are about half of what is “required” to satisfy the craving. But I digress.)

I was going to the meeting of the College and Career group with which I volunteer, sat down in the car, and pushed the starter. (Funny, I recall an old pickup that we had on the farm that had a “starter switch” on the floor. Dad would step down on it to start the truck. Now the fancy cars have a starter button on the dash and you push it to start the car. Progress! Until you have to replace the ignition “switch.”)

Anyway, the response was as old fashioned as you can get. Ever since electric starters first appeared on cars, the bug-a-boo of a dead battery or a defective connection has haunted and taunted drivers. (Or in this case, would be drivers. Without cooperation, you gonna drive nothin' nowhere.)

So I hopped out and connected my battery charger. Fortunately, the other car was not home, or we would have jumped it and probably led to a different “later” problem. After connecting the leads, I tried the starter. It still did not work. That generally means a “really” dead battery and not one that has just gotten slightly discharged. NOTE: I missed the meeting. A jumper may have energized the starter and then it would have not responded the next time I tried to start it--when I was coming home.

Next morning, I disconnected the charger and happened to notice a “little” corrosion on the positive terminal. (For the mathematically or automotively challenged, that is the red cable or red cover to the terminal. It usually has a “+” on it somewhere.

Being a good steward, and understanding the role of corrosion in electrical circuits I looked deeper. (The “role of corrosion” is to act as an insulator. In other words, it keeps the spark from getting through. It is the same result as a dead battery. No electricity gets to the starter and without that other implement in our old pickup, a crank, you are waiting for whatever or whoever to fix your problem. Either a mechanic–or tinkerer, like me, or a tow truck.)

I discovered that the cable connecting the red (positive) terminal to the battery and the rest of the ignition system was filled with corrosion. We bought this car, used, about 9 months ago and I did not think to check the battery terminals. It had to be there when the owner sold it. I know this, because he had turned a screw into the connecter and terminal. I am shocked that it worked as long as it did.

This is the first praise. This is a “then, now, and later” situation. This car has recently taken trips to Chattanooga, Memphis, Alabama, and Knoxville, besides being driven around town. It did not fail on one of those times when it was “out.” A failure here would have caused a varying amount of distress, contingent on the distance from home that it occurred. In the garage was nice.

We were also anticipating further “trips” around town and even one to Indianapolis. So the “later treat” could have been quite distressing and even disastrous. Thankfully, it occurred here, and, after cutting the cable, I discovered that the corrosion has crept (does corrosion creep? It is caused by battery acid leaking and moving up the cable, reacting with the copper, forming copper sulfate–for the chemically curious.) ...crept up the cable about an inch or so. Fortunately, I was able to chemically remove it from the cable, obviating an expensive replacement of the entire cable. (For the chemically curious, use baking soda and water. It reacts and completely removes the corrosion and neutralizes any residual acid.)

“All” I had to do was to replace the connector end of the cable to mate it with the battery. Of course, Honda has a special connection and the AutoZone (shameless product placement) replacement required some modification. But the principle is the same. Make a good connection to a complete circuit and everyone goes home happy. (Literally, and leaves home too.)

So the “tail” was literally the source of the problem. By correcting this, we avoided additional battery troubles and became aware that earlier ones were avoided. Not sure how: That sucker was literally suffused with corrosion.

Maybe I should have started this with, “It happened at the best of times. It happened at the worst of times.” Only it wasn’t really the worst. Just inconvenient for the current plans.

We were protected from “then and later” incidents by a smaller event at home. Thank You Lord.

What Is This For?

One mantra that I drummed into my children, and anyone else who would listen, was, “What is this for?” Or after the fact, “Is that what this is for?” I continually challenged them to ask themselves that question before they did something.

It could be as simple as using a knife blade to turn a screw, or using a toy as a hammer to drive a nail back into the wood. We had a few broken knives and damaged toys, but thankfully, nothing big to explain.

This training played in my head as I read about five Michigan teens who were tossing tires and rocks off an overpass on I-75 at cars passing underneath. Several cars were damaged, and the passenger in one van was fatally injured by the missile.

Evidently, none of these boys, now adults in the eyes of the law, ever asked, “Is that what this is for?” “Rock, overpass, throw rock at car.” Nope, that is not in the handbook of sensible uses for rocks.

As a result, a young father is dead, a young family is fatherless, and five families are coping with criminal charges for their children. And that is not to mention the civil damages that will almost surely be awarded to the owners of the damaged vehicles and the gigantic award awaiting the murdered man’s family.

Yes, you read that right. It was murder. Second degree murder is committing an act that is capable of taking a life without a specific target in mind. Premeditated murder differs in the fact that a specific individual was targeted. The charges may be pled down to first degree manslaughter, but that is still a felony and usually involves significant jail time.

A youth director who led the group my children attended confessed to the kids and parents that he had been convicted, as a teen, of manslaughter. Years later, he was still affected by the consequences, both legal and moral. He warned them to consider the long term ramifications of actions before “doing something dumb.”

“Is that what this is for?” sometimes still causes me to delay an action until I can get the proper tool or whatever, but that delay is minuscule to the one resulting from misuse. (Do I ever get away with “cheating?” Occasionally, but more often I am stuck with repairing or replacing the damaged item and then completing the action with the proper equipment. The instances are coming farther and farther apart.)

Is that what this is for? It may save a life–even your own.

All That Is Not News

Here is an open letter to the news media in the Nashville area. “Everything that happens is not news.” An infamous group of societal misfits is planning a “protest” in Shelbyville and Murfreesboro. Another misguided group is staging a “counter protest” to the protest.

The ironic thing is that I am not sure that I, or anyone else, the groups included, is completely cognizant of what specifically is being protested. But if XYZ group is protesting, ZYX is going to respond. (Mirror image designation is deliberate.)

Anyone is free to protest under the free speech and expression accorded by our Constitution, but every protest is not news worthy. The news outlets do not park their trucks outside the live theaters to report on murders, muggings, and other malevolencies (is that a word? Spell checker underlined it.) malevolent acts that occur in the plays, operas, and other presentations.

They “happen” but they ain’t news. Everything that happens is not news. Shev’ul and the Boro will present competing theater, but no news. Stay away.

If something untoward does occur, treat it like any other news event. Dispatch a truck or reporter to let us know what happened. We do not need an on-scene, play-by-play account of the foolishness. All that, is not news.

The media do not station resources on I-40 junctions to catch the latest semi trailer as it overturns. It is sufficient to cover it after the fact. Our protesting protesters may turn out to be like the thousands of semis that navigate the tricky turns without incident. And there will be no provocation provided by free publicity.

Let’s not make the headline of our media a play on the New York Times: “All that is not news.”

Affairs or Harassment?

The media is inundated with tales of one or another celebrity sexually harassing, abusing, or even assaulting different people. Most of the offenders have been married. Along with the angst at such behavior, we have a litany of queries or proposals as to “what can we do to solve this problem?” Incidentally the same question arises with each mass shooting that we endure.

Rachel Freeman, executive vice president of the Sexual Assault Center in Nashville outlines seven positive steps to combat the epidemic. (Nashville Tennessean 10/17) Like any chaotic event, the solution will take about as long to begin to have an effect as the lead-in to the problem took. Her ideas are admirable, but lack a firm foundation from which to launch. Hollywood, especially, has made a fortune from treating women and people in general as commodities to be exploited and not as individuals to be celebrated. Now we bemoan the inevitable results of such philosophies.

Affairs are often celebrated and even incidents of harassment are either ignored or minimized. In some instances, the harassment began as a mutual affair that became “one sided.” They can be innocuous until the acts become so egregious that they cannot be passed off as mischief or simple immaturity. They are then paraded all over the media, accompanied by proposed (probably futile)  solutions.

Without embarking on an extended theological treatise, I would posit a single statement. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (This insight did not originate with me. Do not want to be charged with plagiarism.) This fundamental recognition of the worth of the individual can be expanded to all forms of sexual adventurism and perversion, including another shunned word, fornication.

The Ten Commandments were not given to “take away our fun.” They were given to reflect the holiness of God and to guide all of us in how to not violate the innate glory with which every person is imbued. Just ask any of the victims how much “fun” they had while being assaulted and even violated in the most cruel and degrading manner. Even now, ask Mr. Weinstein how much “fun” he is having. A little abstention, or better, attention to his wife, would have generated for him a much superior standing than he currently enjoys.

For comparison look at Billy Graham. His “celebrity” status exceeds that which many of our offenders sought or attained. Yet he remained true to one woman. What a strange idea. He would not trade places.

Our cultural obsession with self gratification leads to horrific consequences for those in contact with us, our families, and even our own being. Until we restore a foundational understanding of how people are to interact, we will continue to suffer the consequences of self imposed debauchery. The problem is accentuated by the current,”Me too,” campaign being waged on social media.

Incidentally, “Thou shalt not kill,” falls right in there with reflecting God’s glory in other human beings. Violating that, is not “fun” for anyone. This is almost universally testified to by the self imposed fatal shots that terminate most massacres.

We have sown the wind by banishing the Ten Commandments from our society. We are reaping the whirlwind. (Disclaimer: I did not originate that evaluation either.)

More on Protests

I am embarrassed. No, it is not those who disrespect the flag and the anthem, but we will address that a little later. I am embarrassed by the fans in England. After a rather emasculated version of the “Star Spangled Banner,” a lady sang the national anthem of Great Britain. (“God Save the Queen,” I believe.”) Her rendition was masterful and musically magnificent. (As for our anthem singer, my philosophy is, “If you can’t sing the song, don’t.” But I digress.)

What embarrassed me was that during the British anthem you could hear the full throated participation of the crowd. It was nearly possible to decipher the words, a challenge for any choir. And for an impromptu, “volunteer” choir to do such a job was amazing.

But even more amazing was the participation. It was not the wimpy mouthing of the words that mark American fans at nearly every venue during the national anthem. A lot of the Brits were singing and they were singing loudly.

If we, as Americans, are put off by those protesting during the anthem, let’s let them know by an overwhelming participation in singing that song. Let your patriotism show or rather be heard. Can’t sing? Most of those around you can’t either, but when you all let ‘er rip, no one can tell.

Sing, America! Show your pride and respect.

And for those who deny that the protest should be considered an offense to the flag, consider this. A lot of the same crowd that praises the protests are the same ones who are offended by people flying the Confederate battle flag and revering Civil War monuments. The battle stems from the “perception” of what the objects mean. What offends one is a respected symbol to another.

If you can tolerate disrespecting the flag to make a point, then you better not be offended when someone else disrespects something you hold dear to make a point. “Freedom of speech and expression” cuts both ways. You cannot repress one expression while exercising another.

We have some “real” problems in our country. They include the health care crisis, the devastating budget and national debt debacle, North Korea’s insanity, Iran’s development of ICBM missiles coupled with their nuclear capacity, the immigrant crisis all over the world, etc. And our most pressing issue of the day is whether we stand or kneel and whether we respect and revere an old flag or statues of a defeated army? Surely we can expend a little of our energy on addressing real problems.

Stand, kneel, or sing. But then turn attention to the problems that threaten our country and indeed the entire world.

Protests

When I was a kid I always wanted to read. Mom told me that we would learn that in school. So when the first day of kindergarten came, I was ecstatic. But when I got home, Mom noticed that I was disappointed.

“What’s wrong?” she asked.

“We didn’t learn how to read,” I replied. “I think that the teacher does not know how.”

That was my first introduction to unrealistic expectations, and sadly it was not the last. A second expression of frustration is produced when our affirmations are made in an inappropriate venue. If we are unhappy with our service at a restaurant, we will not vent our feelings in a movie theater. The place to complain is where it will do some good, and not necessarily disturb other patrons of an unrelated venue.

Are our NFL protesters doing any good by expressing their frustration with racism and mistreatment in an NFL stadium? Incidentally, the initial wave of protesters were very well paid and fairly treated, it would seem. I guess I missed the racism and exploitation. Is their “protest” highly public and noticed? Indubitably. But is it 1) effective, and 2) focused on the proper audience?

The biggest impression that most people hold of the protests is that they are denigrating and demeaning the flag and the national anthem. Their protestations not withstanding, the focus is clearly on those two topics. The initiator had to “explain” the meaning of his initial protest. That is not a communication coup when the subject of the protest is not clearly defined and pinpointed.

And are the denials of intent to damage the flag and anthem credible? Imagine that someone took to the media and spued vituperations laced with the “n-word” and other racial and ethnic slurs. “I didn’t mean it like that,” would probably not be an acceptable disclaimer. The same would be true if someone went into a church and cursed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

“I was just sharing some language that I heard on the street. It does not really mean that I am anti-God. I am protesting swearing.”

Turn the story around. Suppose that someone wanted to protest the CTE damage that football players and boxers suffer. So to protest, he protests in front of the medical facility that is studying and attempting to identify and cure the problem. Does “inappropriate venue” come to mind? Dishonoring the very people who have shared and even spent their lives to bring freedom and equality to America is the height of, well, let’s be candid, stupidity. Protesting the very people and institutions that have made us the greatest nation in the world is nonsense.

And, like my kindergarten self, to expect something to happen in one day because I “protest” seems to be another instance of unrealistic expectations. Combine an inappropriate venue with unrealistic expectations and we have a recipe for failure. And we also face the frustration of alienating or dividing our society. We do not need any more divisive issues, thank you.

One game seemed to have an acceptable combination. The players knelt for a minute to draw attention to the players’ concerns, then, arm in arm, stood for the anthem. It made a point without isolating anyone or alienating anyone. That was some mature thinking. Too bad our “kindergarten” friends have not caught up.

A Parable

We got a new(er) car this year and as a dutiful owner, I was perusing the owner’s manual. I got to the section on lubrication and it said that the owner should use synthetic oil. I immediately hurled that hateful book into the garbage. I can put what ever I want into my car and I am not going to have some engineer who thinks he knows it all tell me what to do. If my personal preference is for natural oil, I will use it.

Logical, right? (Notwithstanding the fact that it will limit the lifetime of my vehicle.) Well, you might chuckle or cluck cluck at that, but I dare say that has happened recently with the Nashville Statement. (https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement) A multitude of critics have assailed and assaulted the statement as a hate-filled, bigoted declaration. I have read it and did not find “hate,” or intolerance, or any other derogatory reference. There were 14 affirmations accompanied by 14 denials of misinterpretation of the affirmations.

There are quite a few rebuttals to global warming and none, that I have seen, has been characterized as hate speech. And the opposition to abortion is profound and increasing. I do not recall any “hate” labels applied to that. And there is a group who opposes capital punishment. Defenders of the ultimate penalty do not charge these opponents with being hateful. Even the civil rights movement was not characterized by hateful name calling. Even the dispute over slavery did not devolve into such tactics.

The attack tactics of the homosexual lobby are unprecedented in American history and have descended to a new low in both civility and rationality. For those who have not read the Statement, there is a link included. You will find frank language, but not even as specific as we find in the Bible.

If you miss the love and compassion, read it again. It does not pander to society’s aberrations, and that is conceivably the motivation for the strong negative reaction. It is a strong statement of Biblical world understanding.

The Bible, like my auto manual, it directs us to optimal operational principles for maximum enjoyment of my experience and the longevity of the equipment. Maybe we need to return to the trash can to retrieve our discarded “manuals.”

Definition (Haters)

Abraham Lincoln once said that calling the tail of a dog a leg does not make it a leg. There are factions within our society who villainize others who disagree with their viewpoint. This is not a logical nor reasonable response to disagreement. Doctors have for years warned against smoking cigarettes. And, to be honest, some doctors literally hate cigarettes. And I do too. They stink. Are those doctors “haters or bigots” because they disagree with some peoples’ choice of recreation?

How about those who actively oppose and even arrest excessive and illegal opioid users. In fact, they claim to be doing it for the health of the targets. Is this hatred or bigotry?

A quick internet search for “life expectancy of homosexuals” will uncover page after page of documents. There is some controversy, but the overwhelming majority suggests at least a tenuous link between shorter life spans and what was formerly considered aberrant behavior. So does the person who warns against such activity a “hater,” or someone suggesting a different course of action for the good of the subject? Is being an enabler for such activities really expressing a loving spirit or a callous one? The doctors who counsel against cigarettes or illegal drugs are not doing it to punish or hurt the people involved. They are suggesting a healthy course of life.

If I stand beside the road with a submerged underpass farther ahead and wave merrily and wish a good trip to the cars barreling past, am I showing love? Or if I wave my arms in alarm to attract attention and divert them onto a different route, am I bigoted or hateful?

Interestingly enough, these new viewpoints oppose those held by most societies for thousands of years. Now some wish to change the norm and resort to name calling. Just as calling an appendage something other than which is normal, disagreeing with someone’s societal, philosophical, or theological position does not make them a hater or bigot. It merely points out how the “caller” is deviating from the norm.

The “Nashville Document” is not a hate-filled diatribe. It is a product of a concerned body of believers who can see “down the road” and are warning against a situation worse than a bridge out.

A tail is not a leg, and one who warns against disaster is not a bigot nor a hater.

A Parable

We got a new(er) car this year and as a dutiful owner, I was perusing the owner’s manual. I got to the section on lubrication and it said that the owner should use synthetic oil. I immediately hurled that hateful book into the garbage. I can put what ever I want into my car and I am not going to have some engineer who thinks he knows it all tell me what to do. If my personal preference is for natural oil, I will use it.

Logical, right? (Notwithstanding the fact that it will limit the lifetime of my vehicle.) Well, you might chuckle or cluck cluck at that, but I dare say that has happened recently with the Nashville Statement. (https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement) A multitude of critics have assailed and assaulted the statement as a hate-filled, bigoted declaration. I have read it and did not find “hate,” or intolerance, or any other derogatory reference. There were 14 affirmations accompanied by 14 denials of misinterpretation of the affirmations.

There are quite a few rebuttals to global warming and none, that I have seen, has been characterized as hate speech. And the opposition to abortion is profound and increasing. I do not recall any “hate” labels applied to that. And there is a group who opposes capital punishment. Defenders of the ultimate penalty do not charge these opponents with being hateful. Even the civil rights movement was not characterized by hateful name calling. Even the dispute over slavery did not devolve into such tactics.

The attack tactics of the homosexual lobby are unprecedented in American history and have descended to a new low in both civility and rationality. For those who have not read the Statement, there is a link included. You will find frank language, but not even as specific as we find in the Bible.

If you miss the love and compassion, read it again. It does not pander to society’s aberrations, and that is conceivably the motivation for the strong negative reaction. It is a strong statement of Biblical world understanding.

The Bible, like my auto manual, it directs us to optimal operational principles for maximum enjoyment of my experience and the longevity of the equipment. Maybe we need to return to the trash can to retrieve our discarded “manuals.”

History (Addendum added for those who have seen it earlier.)

Boy, this is confusing to a Midwesterner who did not meaningfully encounter anyone of a different race until he went to college. There, one black basketball player was the most popular guy on campus and the most sought after roommate for the dorms. I was included. Jackie was a fantastic person, an outstanding ball player, and a dedicated Christian. "What is the deal about race?" I wondered. He was even smarter than I.

Our most meaningful encounters with those off campus, besides the churches we attended, was "Townies." These were local youths, usually high school jocks, who objected to the college kids picking the cream of the female crop in town. Before I arrived, "Techies" as we were known then, and Townies literally fought pitched battles with bike chains and ball bats.

When I arrived in 1965 the fervor had cooled and was largely limited to verbal encounters and hostile stares. Since I had no car, my exposure was largely limited to the Gibson Discount Center across the street from campus. But the idea of race never entered any of our confrontations.

So imagine my surprise when race riots broke out several years later. And frankly, I am still "amused" at the fury of certain blocks of thought in our country. The current headlines cover articles proclaiming that Confederate monuments are monuments to white supremacy on one side and conversely beloved historical reminders of brave men and boys who fought for their homes.

Before going any farther, we all need to take a step back. First, the "losing" side did not lose their homes and families. This was an anomaly in warfare up to that time. Lincoln said it best in his second inaugural address.
    "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

This noble sentiment may have never permeated our society, but it at least moderated the residual animosity from the struggle. Today it seems that we are farther from that than ever. Some denounce these symbols, as mentioned above, as symbols of white supremacy. Add to that the inclusion of swastikas in some rallies and an atmosphere of hatred is inferred.

Notice that I used, deliberately, "inferred." It may indeed be accurate, but they are merely symbols. Yes, symbols can resurrect unpleasant memories, particularly in those who are personally connected with them as Holocaust survivors and their families. The "Confederate battle flag" holds no such "personal" contact with anyone alive today. But both can be painful reminders of past abuses and atrocities.

Perspective is the critical word here. The Civil War was concluded with a total surrender of the Confederacy. Any residual reminders of that side of the war must certainly be coupled with the term, and I hope I do not alienate my local friends, "loser." The Union, The United States of America won the war. That is the flag that prevailed in eliminating slavery. It reunited the seceded states with the United States.

Has every vestige of the past been eradicated? No, of course not. But stirring up old animosities does not seem to be a productive way of combating the shortcomings. Whenever I see a Battle Flag flying, I wonder why that guy is celebrating the losing side. He might be like the pre-2016 Cubs fans, who continually supported the lovable losers at Wrigley. But the Cubs were not morally, socially, and ethically detestable. This flag waving crowd truly deserves H. Clinton's disapprobation of "basket of deplorables."

And the swastika is even more poignant as a symbol of absolute loss. Again, warfare, after WWI and WWII, was revolutionized with the losing side being rebuilt and rehabilitated by the winning philosophy. But Germany surrendered, unconditionally, to the Allies. Since England and France were decimated by the war, the recovery was pretty much fueled by Uncle Sam.

I do not see extremist groups running around waving the German or Japanese flags. All that is selected is the most extreme, and most highly offensive, defeated symbol, literally, in the world.

And not to be too personal here, but one cannot wonder if waving the defeated flags is not a self-pronouncement of "loser." Admittedly, my "dog in the hunt" won in both WWII and the Civil War. But I am not offended if the opposition wishes to remember and memorialize their losing heroes. But they lost.

And for the swastika, what more scorn can we heap on it? It is the symbol of a failed and defeated philosophy. Compared to the "atrocities" of the Nazis in Europe, the infractions associated with both sides in the Civil War pale into insignificance. So parading that odious symbol must indicate that either the parader is either ignorant of the history and significance, or stupid.

If merely ignorant of the reprehensible history, then he is capable of remediation. He can learn and profit from the lesson. If he knows about the flag and persists in flaunting it, the only summation appropriate is stupid. No rational, reasonable, responsible member of society can possibly march under this standard and its implications.

But, as our old friend Gomer Pyle said, "You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd." Implying that to try was less than intelligent. Plus you get your skates all messy.

Forest Gump reminds us that, "Stupid is as stupid does." Or to rephrase it, "You can't fix stupid."

Final observation. The "divisive" monuments have not sparked riots until one side decided to remove them. Many of them have existed for 100 years or more and all was peaceful. Some may be offended, but I am offended at White Castle restaurants. I think of slime sliding down my throat. So I avoid them. Not comparable, I know, but the concept is transferable.

The monuments hurt no one. The monuments help no one. Let's find a constructive way to communicate and see the world from someone else's perspective. We won't change history. But we can make new history.

Peace, brothers.

Addendum: Just for the record, I became aware of US Code 85-425 Section 40 5/23/1958. This law makes all Civil War veterans equivalent to US soldiers. Further Public Law 810 of 2/26/1929 declares that all headstones and grave sites of Confederate soldiers are US sites.

So the activists are attacking United States' veterans' memorials and monuments. Seems like our parents and grandparents were ready to "get over it." So the emphasis on reigniting this conflagration is an act of defiance to the United States. Where will it end?

Again, let them rest in peace.

Cowboys

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" And the politicos and pundits were beside themselves.

"This cowboy's gonna start World War Three!" they wailed. And the beat goes on. You know the rest of that story.

And now, 30 years later, in response to Kim J. U. threatening to shoot a missile at Guam, President Trump told him to expect fire and fury.

And the press went apoplectic. (Was that word coined for this instance?) "Oh no! He's gonna start World Wars Three through Eight!" And the beat goes on.

But our friends in Kim-la-land had a change of heart. It may be that they knew a little more than the average American does. Just a guess, but we can surmise that every missile launch that the N. Koreans made was a "aiming exercise" for the US and its allies to zero in on the projectile.

Remember the repeated failures to launch a while back? Was that just poor planning and execution, or were some unknown "missile defense" systems being perfected. When they were shown to operate satisfactorily, the interdictors then shifted to tracking and destroying the "birds" in flight.

The tin-pot despot is facing a bleak future. He cannot exist without help from his ally, China, so how could he expect to prevail in a showdown with the most powerful nation on earth? He knows that, and so does President Trump. You can't bluff a wheeler dealer. Kenny Rogers, in the "Gambler" and the sequels, taught us that.

Just calm down and watch the lack of fireworks. Mutual assured destruction is not in play, as it may have been in 1987 Berlin. But an "assured destruction" certainly awaits any foolish act by TPD.

We may need to rethink the old song, "Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys." Sometimes we need a "cowboy" to keep the peace. Cowboy Kim seems appropriately cowed.

Suthen Boy

    (With apologies to my Southern friends.)

I have to admit it. I am not a Southerner yet. I may never make it. When we first moved down here a lady in the office said that she was having trouble getting "tar" off her car. I piped up brightly, "We have some cleaner that takes it right off?"

She looked at me quizzically. Well, maybe she thought I was kind of nutty. "A rag with liquid on it?"

"Yes Ma'am. In fact I have some in my trunk. Do you want me to try?"

She must have thought I was plumb stupid. "I just need to borrow a wrench to take the bolts off to change my tar. It is flat."

Fast forward 30 years. I called to get the times and location of the office where we can buy senior passes for all of the national parks for $10. At the end of the month the price goes up to $80 for a lifetime pass. By the way. (Or btw for my texting friends.) If you want one, get it now. A pretty good investment, if you ask me.)

So Tanner answered and told me that we could pick them up from 8 am to 4 pm, Monday through Friday.

 "And where is the office located?"

"It is at 3737 Bale Road."

"Bale, B-A-L-E?"

No, Bale Road, B-E-L-L."

"Ok, thank you."

I guess I am still a northerner or worse, a Ya-un-kee. An I will not forgit EE-it. I do understand that one syllable words, like bell are pronounced with two syllables. And multiple syllables are compressed like in biness. Sometimes I slip up.

Sigh....

Grand Jury

On 8/6/17 "Tennessean" had an editorial on Grand Juries. In the process of discussing the process the author noted that the Davidson County Grand Jury returned about 99% indictments for cases presented to it. Here is the exact quotation.

"Ironically, they sided with law enforcement in 99 percent of the 477 cases they reviewed — perhaps attributable to the fact that they relied only on the arguments of police and prosecutors."

Note the final phrase. The number of indictments is "...perhaps attributable to the fact that they relied only on the arguments of police and prosecutors." That is precisely the case, because in the Grand Jury system in Tennessee, the police and prosecutors bring all of the cases to the Jury, a presentment, for the panel to determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant going to trial. No other evidence or view point is offered.

That is akin to saying that every ball that was hit by the batter was thrown by the pitcher. Seems obvious and repetitious and redundant.

The Jury has one job. It is not to determine guilt or innocence. It is to evaluate the evidence presented by the authorities and decide if there is enough to warrant a trial. I served on a GJ once and nearly every time we met, either the prosecutor or the foreman reminded us that we were not to decide if we thought the subject had done it. We were to decide if a crime had occurred and enough evidence pointed toward the person in question to justify a trial.

Now just logically, no officer would bring a case in which he had no evidence. There would be nothing for us to judge. We had one citizen complaint where a citizen appeared and asked us to indict his neighbor. We decided that no crime had occurred. He was probably rude, crude, and lewd, but no law had been broken. No true bill.

So the comment that the Jurors relied only on the arguments of police and prosecutors is pointless. No one else presents to a grand jury. The defense gets its day in court. The simple fact that 99% were returned as a true bill merely reflects the fact that the government had done its job. There was enough evidence to go to trial.

Nothing more or nothing less is implied by this data. The grand jury is not to inject race, or financial, or cultural, or social bias into the equation. Is there evidence? Yes, indict. No, do not indict. No evaluation of the evidence is involved, other than ascertaining that some exists.

Do your job Tennessean. The grand jury did.

A Tale of a Mower

(Warning to the sensitive or politically motivated: This post has absolutely no political or cultural implications, accusations, or reverberations. It is just a story.)

Last Saturday we were mowing the lawn before the rain hit and before we had to leave for a trip to the theater with some friends. Just after turning a corner, the mower went dead. I knew I was low on gas and immediately assumed that a fuel shortage had caused the untimely cessation of activity. (Spoiler alert: A little twinge, perhaps recognized after the fact, ran through my consciousness. It didn't choke and sputter. It just stopped dead.)

All of the gas cans were empty, so a quick trip to the Quik Trip station for some gas ensued. Pouring it into the tank reignited (not literally, thank the Lord) the misgiving. It didn't seem to take as much gas as an empty tank usually did. Ignoring that, I hopped onto the seat, depressed the clutch interlock, and turned the key. Absolutely nothing. No lights, no grunt, like a totally dead battery. I grabbed my trusty electrical tester and registered 12 point something on the volt meter. Full battery.

Maybe the PTO, the mechanism that runs the blade, had not been disengaged. It was off. Pull on, push off. Repeat. Turn key. Nothing. Bummer. Now what? We moved the mower up to the shed and left it a couple of days. The old "maybe it will fix itself strategy." Nope, nothing, nada.

The Internet had bookoo videos on how to check a starter and solenoid. But a failure of those parts would not kill the engine when running. Maybe the battery is bad, but reading good. Vain hope at best, but worth a try. We jumped the battery with the car and turned the key. Nothing.

Next genius thought. Remove the deck and see if something had been pulled loose or something. Nothing looks wrong from the top. The battery is under the hood, so there were no wires or anything running under the seat. Moving toward the front, when what to my wondering eye should appear but a bare wire running to the PTO'ere. (With apologies to *Clement Moore. My rhythm and rhyming was not the best, but my elation exceeded that of his narrator.) It had not been cut, but all of the insulation had been stripped off both strands and bare wires were hanging out.

Friday morning, after waiting out a short shower, I was out there with electrical tape and a pair of pliers. I wrapped the wires, insulating them and wired the little harness to the frame to keep it away from rotating parts. Nagging thought as I took my seat on the tractor–again. If the PTO had shorted out, it might have killed the engine, but after the switch was off, the wires should not be energized or even part of the electrical circuit. Turn key...nothing.

A niggling thought had followed me last night. If the switch is off, then the engine, at least should start, but the PTO would not run. Here we have what you call a dead mower. And then another brilliant thought hit the brain waves. When two wires touch and they are not supposed to touch (*See my story on car repair.) When they touch and are not supposed to, something happens. Either wires fry, or preferably a fuse blows.

Is there a fuse on this mower? I had made a cursory exam earlier, but now did it in earnest. A wiring module was attached to the frame just below the main wiring block of the dashboard. Popping it out of its holder, a yellow, 20 amp fuse appeared. (Sorry, Mrs. Cheney. The fuse did not pop itself out of the holder, I did it and then it appeared to me. I don't remember what English that error is, but still make a few of them when writing.  Is it "unclear antecedent?" But I digress.) Extracting the fuse, I noticed immediately that it did not have a continuous filament or link. (Got it right there.) Blown fuses conduct no electricity. Ergo, dead engine. Might as well not even have a battery.

No 20 amp fuses reside in our tool boxes or clutter drawers. But I know where to find one. Quick trip number two, insert fuse, and gratifyingly, rrr, rrrr, varoom! Mower works. Check PTO. Runs.

I am so thankful that I did not hire a guy to come out for $75 a visit to fix my mower. Or even borrow a truck and haul it to someone. For small blessings we are grateful. And our lawn is better for it.

* http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/08/auto-repair-or-too-late-smart.html

Auto Repair Or Too Late Smart

(This is a repeat of an earlier post for illustrative purposes. My apologies to those who have already seen it. It has some corrections, additions, and clarifications.)

There is an old saying from the elder generation. They are too soon old and too late smart. Not to tell on myself or give away my age, but I have a great (read "bad") example of that.

Always disconnect the battery when working on the electrical system of a car. Obvious, isn't it? Who would try to repair the wiring of a house without first flipping off the breaker? Me.

I have changed half a dozen or more generator/alternators on cars, trucks, and vans. (Hey, that could be the name of a movie or something.) I do not recall ever disconnecting the battery before beginning the adventure. Some vehicles place the alternator conveniently underneath the air conditioning compressor. Which, I might add is not "disconnectable" without special equipment and probably even a hazardous materials certification. (Just made up the "d" word.)

But never have I had a problem like this time. But first a praise. My wife took this car to Knoxville last week end. That was a miracle in itself through the accumulated ice and snow from two back to back storms. She drove the car to work Monday through Wednesday, when it started to make a funny sound. But she got home from both trips. No inconvenience and cost of towing.

I checked it when she got home, or tried to check it, and found the battery dead. One of the possibilities for the "whining" sound the car was producing was a defective or failing alternator. Finding a dead battery pretty well confirmed that analysis.

Charge the battery over night and drive to Auto Zone. Special tester announces that alternator is indeed defective. New one only costs $115–in the box. Installation is up to you. (Or me in this instance.)  To make a long story short, about five hours later the new alternator is nestled snugly in its bed with the serpentine belt replaced and seemingly ready to go. (The S-belt is a story in itself, but will be foregone.)

Slide into the seat, turn the switch, and be greeted with the lovely sound of dead silence. Nothing. Maybe the battery discharged during the process. That had never happened before, but....

Jumper cable produces...same result. Visions of towing this puppy to a dealer or mechanic and sitting for days waiting for the queue to bring the Toyota into the repair bay. (Too many product placements?)

"Maybe it is a fuse," suggested one of the helpful AZ technicians. Check, sure enough, there under a little cover that said 120 A was a piece of metal lying by itself. A quick perusal of other similar boxes, only with smaller "A" numbers confirmed that Mr. 120 was indeed blown.

Did I mention that I had accidentally touched the two wires connecting the alternator to the electrical system together? There was quick snap-pop and then all was well. No harm done, I thought. Well, not exactly. This fuse is the main one for the entire automobile. It keeps dumbells like me from frying the electrical system, computer, etc. Now the results of my minor oversight of not disconnecting the battery appears. One blown fuse.

Great! Pop that puppy out and we are on our way. Several vigorous tugs later only resulted in removing the top of the little box. The fuse body was firmly in place. A second, more experienced AZ helper informed me that the "big" fuses like this are BOLTED into the fuse box. And the bolts are INSIDE the box.

Again, short story for long process, the fuse box must be removed from the chassis. Before being able to access the bolts securing it, one must remove the battery and the air filter. (One blessing here, the battery is disconnected.)Then the box is fully exposed and can be unbolted from the frame.

Now the box itself must be dismantled and the bottom removed, exposing about 50 wires of various colors and sizes that are "conveniently" located between my socket and the securing bolt. Several minutes of severe contortions and holding your mouth just right allowed us (had a helper by now) to remove the bolt. (Little praise. We did not drop the bolt down into the innards of the engine compartment.)

Bolts out. The second bolt was for some unexplained reason, placed on the outside of the box and so easily accessible that one was almost disappointed at the lack of challenge to remove it. (Again, no drops. It was all of 1/4 of an inch long or so.)

Old, expired fuse slid out with no effort at all. Almost anticlimactic. New one goes in, replace small bolts. (No mean feat, but at this stage, the impossible became merely inconvenient.)

Replace bottom of fuse box. Bolt fuse box back into place. Replace air cleaner. Replace battery. Oh, did I mention that I disconnected the battery before beginning? Guess that was kind of assumed as the battery had to be completely removed to access the fuse box securing bolt.

Put tools away. (Maybe too presumptuous here. Let's see.) Turn key. Engine sputters and purrs to life. IT RUNS! And just as important, no squeal. Success for the weekend warrior. And in fact it basically took a week end. And early week end, starting Thursday morning and finishing Friday afternoon. No work, other than auto related, completed. Just like a week end.

This reminded me of a statement that a Pastor I like makes a lot. "That is so simple it takes a preacher to mess it up." In this instance, this process of replacing a fuse is so simple that an engineer had to mess it up.

My Dad used to comment on how he wished that engineers would have to actually work on the devices that they built. The design would be a lot more "user friendly" if they personally had to make the repairs that they blithely ignore in their initial designs.

So working on my wife's crippled Camry (PP), I was reminded of Engineering Goof Ups 101. I am sure that there were some very compelling, to the engineer, anyway, reasons why the design was made. But to the poor weekend putterer (auto, not golf), they certainly pale in comparison to the difficulty of after production repair.

Thank you for you kind attention. And now I retire to solve my long neglected Rubik cube. A simple task compared to replacing a fuse.

By the way, disconnect the battery before working on any electrical system. Did I mention that?  Changing the channels on the radio is excluded from this caveat. But that is about all.

At least you can say that I am a little smarter than I was on Wednesday evening.
 Have a blessed day.

Of Cows and Kids

Cows are interesting and fascinating creatures. Our milk cows queued up at the door to the barn twice a day, waiting to be relieved of their full udder of milk. And they probably were also motivated by the sweetened and salted ground milo or rolled oats that Dad provided for them exclusively in the milking parlor. Their "parlor," for many years, was an open barn with five stanchions through which they placed their heads and were locked into place to confine them while being milked.

We could walk in front of the stanchion to replenish the grain for a cow who had left or needed more. Dad added the molasses to increase their thirst, which in turn produced more milk. It was like candy to them, and they often nosed the bucket as we passed along in front of them, in a effort to solicit more of the sweet treat. Or they nosed our legs, arms, or anything they could reach in an effort to draw attention their "empty" plate. Those big, slobbery noses would leave large patches of bovine saliva on whatever they touched.

This memory was elicited (ever notice how close that is to "illicit?) by contemplation of the Baby Charlie episode in Great Britain. I will explain later. Cows are very hierarchical, meaning that there is a definite and specific pecking order. When they lined up to enter the barn, the same one was nearly always first. The second one likewise took her turn and this continued pretty far down the "list" of cows. The "alpha" cow was always first and got what ever or where ever she wanted.

Occasionally a new or adventurous member of the herd would "jump the line." She would lurk just behind the lead cows and when we opened the door she would rush past everyone else and get in first. She often also took the first stall, which, if you recall, belonged to someone else. The Someone else. When Alphie (the first) got in she often took a swipe at the offending interloper. Standing beside her, she would swing her head in a "horizontal butt" and whack the offender in the ribs. (Ed. Cows have strong necks.) If necessary this "discipline" continued outside after they had both been milked and released.

That usually settled the matter for a while anyway. If the challenger ever overcame Alphie, she became the next alpha female. It was quite interesting to watch. This came to mind thinking about the "copout" statement that "the hospital" had denied Charlie the opportunity to receive a new and experimental treatment. (This Little Life of Mine) We all know that hospitals are not sentient beings, but hopefully are run by sentients.

The decision to deny treatment was made by the staff, and quite possibly one group of the staff, and most likely, by the alpha cow of the group. (I told you it would relate.) Even if a "committee" were involved, there would be one or two who would dominate and virtually dictate the decision. Those unelected, and unaccountable individuals literally control life and death for the patients entrusted to the care of "the hospital."

The United Kingdom has degenerated, if you please, to the level of "the state knows best." Should that be capitalized, State? The legal system agreed with the "alpha cow" and rejected several lawsuits seeking relief for the baby.

What many fail to recognize is that the group or committee form of governance and decision making ultimately devolves to the alpha cow.  As discussed in "Little Life," there are putative explanations or rationalizations (Ever notice that rationalize begins with "rat?") Rationalizations to justify the activity, or lack of same. One could raise economic, or ethical, or medical, or even practical objections. But ultimately the consensus would err on the side of death rather than life.

This institutional prejudice is facilitated and exacerbated by the pecking order force of reason. It is easier to just give up and give in. Charlie's parents were the epitome of either hopeless romantic dreamers, or dedicated and committed advocates for the weak and even helpless.

The lead cow never has the goal of improving the lot of the herd. She is watching out for one interest, her own. Wise parents never let a cow babysit for them. It is a sure recipe for disaster. Sadly, Charlie's parents had no choice, and if there was a chance for remission or even just relief, some old cow squandered it. (I hope for decorum's sake that it is not a woman.)

The Apostle Paul in Philippians 4:8 gives us some good advice for times like this.
...whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Another verse says, "Fix your mind on things above, and not on things on the earth." (Colossians 3:2) This is both how to cope with our present turmoil and how to rectify it. Maybe we need to be alpha cows in thinking to lead the society.

It cannot help but benefit our kids.

This Little Life of Mine

The world has been mesmerized and horrified at the events surrounding the life of an infant in Great Britain. Little Charlie Gard was hovering on the brink of death for several months while his parents conducted a legal battle to engage new doctors and an experimental process in an effort to slow or even counter the effects of his condition. We will consider the social and legal ramifications of that in "Of Cows and Kids."

The fundamental issue in the dispute was the fact that in Great Britain, parents do not have what we call a "power of attorney for health care." (Incidentally, if you do not have one in place for yourself and for other members of your family, you should execute one as rapidly as possible. Legally, in the USA, parents can direct medical care for minor children and spouses can do so for each other. All other relationships require a POAHC. It will save a ton of trouble, especially for elderly parents.)

In Great Britain, regardless of the agency of enforcement, health care delivery or denial is out of the parents' control. News outlets have identified "the hospital" as being the entity denying the treatment to Charlie. But legal appeals to both English and European courts were denied on the basis that the hospital was within its rights to deny coverage. So other entities, including legal statutes and authorities, were at least acquiescent to this travesty.

The question before us is what possible motivation would a health care entity use to deny coverage? Was it pride, at the thought of an "outsider" saving a baby that they had deemed irreversibly injured? How infantile and idiotic. There is probably a deeper driving force. Perhaps it was an economic consideration of the continuing drain on limited funds and other resources. Continuing to treat Baby Charlie might divert needed funds from other infirm children. But the family had raised sufficient funds to finance the treatment, and this disregards the offers of free treatment.

The final one might be germane. The continued treatment of Charlie might constitute a torturous and painful end to his life. No one really knows as he was unable to communicate. If the object was to prevent a protracted suffering, and ultimately futile extension, then compassion would dictate that the treatment be terminated. And here, we approach the core of anyone's motives. If it is indeed hopeless, then the compassionate and humane course might be to allow a peaceful transition.

This scenario, however, does seem to pose a specific and dangerous conundrum. Compassion can be conflated with convenience with very little effort. Many abortions are putatively performed to prevent a poor quality of life for the possibly deformed fetus. This is extensively applied to Down's Syndrome children, despite the testimony of multitudes of parents and families who aver that the "handicap" was actually a blessing for the entire family.

The progression (I hesitate to use the trite, "slippery slope euphemism) progression from compassion for the afflicted victim to convenience of his or her care givers is easy to trace.

We can identify and characterize the root problem as a failure to follow the advice of "Err on the side of life." If we are to make a mistake, we should actively attempt to emphasize the possibility of life and survival, rather than assuming death and defeat.

Our English teacher at good old SHS would tease students who tried to "explain" an incorrect answer as not really being what they meant. They meant the right answer, but just mis-stated it. "Oh, so you want to shoot to, ‘hit-if-it's-a deer-miss-if-it's-a-man." We all quickly recognized the concept and shuddered as we pictured ourselves as the "man." Too close for comfort.

Apologists for "the hospital" are trying to be compassionate, yet assuming a negative outcome and all of its consequences. If nothing else, Baby Charlie exposed a culture of expecting the worst, rather than exerting all due effort for a possible positive outcome. "All due effort." of course, is extremely subjective. That is why the margin of error should be weighted toward the life side.

And let's expose one other interlocking consideration of the explanation. "The hospital" opposed the treatment. May I be blunt? That is what is known in Greek as, "bull hockey." The hospital is a collection of buildings where health care is dispensed. A more correct designation would be the hospital staff, and more likely, the administration. And all of that ultimately comes down to one person. (See of Cows and Kids.)

The attitude of the "hospital" both staff and administration has allowed the "death" weight to predominate in their value system and decision making. Charlie has contributed at least two things to our thinking and attitudes. First, every life is valuable, even this helpless, probably hopeless little spark of being. If the awareness of life's value and the willingness of able advocates to fight for it in very difficult and trying circumstances is exposed to other potential "Charlies" and their parents, we might count this as worthwhile. Someone who potentially is prone to "give up" may be encouraged to fight on, and survive. This can apply to any point on the continuum of life. End of life issues are suffused with this same language and consideration.

Our second lesson from Charlie is that it is always worth the effort to preserve life. If nothing else, more people are aware of some possible treatments for "hopeless" maladies. Some researcher, on the brink of success, may be emboldened to push for just one more test or option.

When asked if failing to produce a working light bulb in about 10,000 failed attempts had discouraged him, Thomas Edison replied, "No, I now know 10,000 things that will not work." The list of possible solutions was shrinking, and he eventually prevailed. Another encouraging summary was, "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."

Thank you, Charlie, for bringing us the realization that life is not hopeless, even when it seems  hopeless. Another quotation from Edison fits here: "When you have exhausted all possibilities, remember this - you haven't."

World problems force a negative approach into our consciousness. At times it might seem like it is hopeless. Why try to go on? Just give up. What difference can I make? Little Charlie encourages all of us to resist and not capitulate in difficult times with this imputed mantra:
"This little life of mine, I'm gonna let it shine."

Impeachment

Article Two, Section Four of the Constitution: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors.

Well, two congressmen have jumped into the stupid pool with their filing of "articles of impeachment." A quick look at the sentence above completely undercuts any grounds for their action. This Constitution is such a pesky document. Just when you have a great point, we find that it is not supported Constitutionally. Unfortunately, too many of our public "servants" are really self "servants" or party "servants."

And, by the way, "impeachment" means indictment, not conviction. As we have learned from history, the threat of impeachment is often a double edged sword, cutting the one who wields it as badly as the one being attacked. (Pun alert) Very often the most frequent uses of this weapon are conducted by political hacks. (You were warned.)

Our "whack-a-mole" political landscape is both embarrassing and demeaning to our country. Rumors pop up and as soon as one is whacked, another appears in its place. Imagine how impressed the North Korean despot is with our level of sophisticated rhetoric. No wonder he thinks he can get away with outrageous activities like firing an ICBM into the ocean. He is "testing" both his hardware and our intelligence. Will we be too occupied with hacked emails and clandestine meetings to pay attention?

Can we impeach Congressmen for imbecility?

Bologna Collusion (This is blatantly and overtly political.)

IIIII-EEEEeeeeeee...hear the siren ramping up to about 110 decibels? That is the Bologna Sensor  system. It is focused on Washington, D.C. Seems a Democratic Congressman is preparing to "investigate" Donald Trump, Jr. because he "met with a Russian diplomat to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton." The putative purpose of the "clandestine" encounter was for the Russians to feed harmful intel to the Trump campaign.

Without even considering the information involved, we have set off the BS alarm. And what is the intent of the "investigation" by our unnamed friend? It is to discover harmful intel on the President and his campaign. Isn't that what Trump Jr. was doing in reverse?

Let's review the political campaigns from about 1950 to the present. Well, if you are a glutton for punishment, go back to 1789. Running against GW was about like running against God, one would imagine. He got all of the votes for President.

Of interest to Tennessee voters was Andrew Jackson's campaign where the opposition dug up dirt on Jackson's wife. Excuse the pun, but dirty politics is nothing new.

So for the Trump campaign to explore any possible misdeeds by the opposition is neither new nor nefarious. And, if I recall correctly, the "opposition" paraded a stream of accusers of Candidate Trump before the cameras and the news outlets. That was not to "undermine" the campaign, was it? And we can find evidence that the Ukraine worked with Hillary's campaign to undermine Trump's. IIIEEEeee.

And the BS meter goes crazy when the supposed content of the "dirt" on Hillary is factored into the mix. The agent implied that Secretary Clinton had crossed some legal and ethical lines in the uranium compact that she brokered with the Kremlin. If that were true, then disclosing that information BEFORE the election would seem to be of paramount import for the United States, and antithetical to the interests of the Soviets.

Think for a second, with all the dirt flying from the primaries to the final result. Did you change your vote because of something "bad" you heard about your candidate? It reaffirmed my dislike for the other guy, but otherwise it was just "politics as usual." And further, if Russia had released emails of the Trump campaign planning to upset the Hil, would you have switched to support her? The emails cemented positions. If you liked her, you were unfazed. If you disliked her, you were confirmed in your belief of her deficiency. The same thing happened with regard to the Trump campaign.

Doesn't "collusion" have to effect the outcome? Not to mention that it is only a crime when financial fraud is intended. If a ball player colludes with a bookie, he shaves the score or throws the game. A jockey holds his horse back as a result of collusion. I suppose that the Democrats assume that "the loss" was an affected outcome, yet they have failed to show any voters who changed their votes based on the "Russian interference." And no financial ramifications.

The "Tennessean" ran a story (7/12/17) "Wayne County residents support President Trump despite controversy" that seemed to leave the writer mystified. Maybe I was reading into his comments, but it was almost as if he were saying, "With all this bad stuff, they still support him." I guess, collusion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I do not recall a similar article marveling at the devotion to former President Obama when his pronouncements were all going awry. Maybe failure is likewise eye-of-beholder dependent.

Let's run the BS plow a little deeper. If Clinton had indeed given the Russians undeserved benefits, why would they be "blowing the whistle" on her at this point. If she were in actuality, Russia-phillic, would it not make sense that they would prefer her in the White House? Why would they sabotage their own stooge? Oops, I mean confederate.

And if the information were to be determined spurious, would it not behoove any campaign, regardless of politics, to expose it? Then we find out that the actual "agent" was a Russian lawyer, and not any type of government official. The supposed Russian agent has disavowed any connection with the Kremlin and the Kremlin returned the compliment. The rumor hounds are at full bay, nearly drowning out the BS siren. Funny we didn't hear any of that during the Benghazi brouhaha. But I digress.

Combine a questionable agent, with a questionable motive, with questionable information, and what do you get? An inquisitive son, who was not even an official campaign official.

Was it a little ill-advised? Maybe, but put the "smoking" emails back into context and the ulterior intent drops to about the level of a son fighting, what he considered, a lop sided battle against his dad. He was actually "delighted" to hear that someone had some "dirt" and not that it was a Russian agent it seems, when reading the actual text.. For the conspiracy consumed, read slowly.

As Ronald Reagan used to say, "It isn't that the liberals don't know anything. It is just that a lot that they know, just ain't so."

The siren song of collusion (pun intended) is deafening, but not communicative. I hope we all aren't deef by December. IIII-EEEEEEeeeeee. And our BS sensor has not even touched the "articles of impeachment" presented by two Constitutional imbeciles.

Battle of the Birth Certificate Round 2

Did I ever tell you about Abraham Lincoln and how many legs a dog has? Oh yes, that was last week, wasn't it? (Here We Go Again.) (1) Well, my point in that discussion was that all sorts of weird things could follow the "monkeying" with birth certificates. Well, weird has struck.

The latest skirmish in the cultural wars is over sex. Not that kind, and not even sexual identity. The latest "shot fired across the bow" is a family demanding that the birth certificate of their child NOT identify the infant as a male or female. They want to wait until the child "is able to decide for him/her/itself what sex to claim. (Note to parents: And who is the infant, here? Check out a third grade "sex ed" text and the difference is apparent–even to parents.) (Sorry, could not resist.)

Since we are addressing cultural wars, it seems appropriate to include the concept of "science deniers." One aspect of society claims to understand the origins of everything, and particularly  homo sapiens. They further presume to totally fathom climate and global patterns and have pronounced that the earth is being assaulted with increasing temperatures as a direct result of human activity. (Previously discussed–and debunked.)

The salient point in their arguments and accusations is that those who disagree with them are "science deniers." The implication is that this favored segment of the race is blessed with superior intellect and comprehension of all things and, to borrow a phrase from science fiction, the Borg, "Resistance is futile."

What is so totally ironic, or can we go so far as to characterize this mind set as "asinine,"(?) is that the real science is not on their side. Take our current issues for instance. Biologically, it is impossible for two persons, well, specifically, women, to gestate the same offspring. One baby has one mother. I guess if we get really wild and conceive the child in one woman, then transplant the fertilized ovum to a second who carries it to birth, a murky claim to dual motherhood may be sustained. But biologically, the "egg donor" is technically the mother for genetic purposes.

Recall the definition posited in our previous consideration. The birth certificate is a record of live birth and of the two contributing entities from which the offspring was derived. It is not a social construct by which activists of any stripe may placard any divergent or aberrant belief or comment.

Our current "case" involves another such declaration of, frankly, the denial of science. Even in some "undefined" children who possess the external genitalia of both sexes, a DNA determination will definitively determine the facts. So to leave the question unanswered is both senseless and in denial of facts. (Look up the definition of "asinine" for some more synonyms.)

Our society is becoming increasingly confused. This lack of absolute values is infecting almost every aspect of the individual, family, community, nation, and even world perceptions.

Perhaps the earlier reference to the Borg was not tangential. A collective conscience and objective seems to be emerging where the rights and even the existence of the individual is subject and subordinate to the "hive."

Is a "simple" dispute over the information inserted into a birth certificate that earth shattering? If the intention is to preserve and convey information, data, it is not. Other resources are available. But if the intent is reform and restructure both world view and the resulting society, then, yes it is critically essential to move the collective understanding in this direction. (Pun intended.)

Alexander Hamilton is credited with stating, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for everything." (Variously, something," "anything," or "everything.") (Think that is one reason for wanting to take him off the five spot?) That seems to summarize the question for us. What do we, and what will we, stand for? And both senses of the phrase are applicable.

We need Superman to help us "Stand for Truth, Justice, and the American way." Fill out the birth certificate

Here We Go Again (With apologies to the sensible among us.)

 Abraham Lincoln was once asked how many legs a dog would have if you call the tail a leg. He responded, "Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

It seems the six liberal justices on the SCOTUS have not learned that basic physiological dictum. "Calling something, something else, does not make it something else." In Pavan v. Smith, the court, with three dissensions, arbitrarily ruled, without hearings or briefs, that Arkansas had to list two "mothers" on the birth certificate of a child born to a same sex couple. (Female, obviously.)

Aside from the logistical problems should this hapless child ever face if he or she (is that defined by the court as well?) if he or she should ever attempt to trace a biological heritage, it is senseless to proclaim an impossibility as fact. In case the Justices in question slept through Biology 101, it is humanly (emphasis applied) humanly impossible for a baby to have two mothers.

It might make sense, culturally, for the two women to declare that they would jointly act as a mother figure to the child, but both cannot be the biological birth parent. What happens if two males "produce" a child (by surrogate, obviously) and wish to be listed as joint-fathers? Will the Court sanction that nonsense?

What if a heterosexual couple produce a child and the male claims the "mother" designation on the birth certificate and the female claims the father slot? Essentially the court action has rendered the birth certificate null and void. It is a "participation" trophy for whoever wishes to be involved in the charade marriage has been rendered.

Hey! What about adoptive parents? Will they demand to be listed on the birth certificate, as they are now "Mother and Father?" And will any self-respecting doctor sign a certificate that lists two mothers and no fathers?

Seems a basic tenant of legal definition has been overlooked. A "birth certificate" is a record of a live birth and the two parents who produced this child. It is not a social construct by which activists of any stripe may placard any divergent or aberrant belief or comment. What if someone determined to decry the concept of race for this new life? Could the baby be whimsically labeled as a Native American or of African descent or any other ethnic or cultural heritage? Maybe he will be a Klingon. Will the political affiliations and inclinations of both parents be listed as well? Such folderol.

Honestly, Abe, we need a fresher course in reality. If we call a Supreme Court Justice an honored and wise jurist, does that make it so? 

I know! Label one the "mother" and the other the "attending care giver." (Present at birth, but not participating in conception. Any other details you want? Let's not go there.)

Altogether now, let's count legs.

Star-Spangled Declaration

 As we approach the anniversary commemoration of the Declaration of Independence, consider a second declaration, made 30 to 40 years later. The British were in the midst of an attempt to reverse the outcome of the War for Independence.

The final stanza of the poem, "Defense of Fort M'Henry," turns the attention from the immediate matter to the long term view for the young nation. Francis Scott Key was attempting to exchange prisoners with the British and coincidentally was aboard a British vessel when the attack on Fort McHenry commenced. To prevent his sharing the details of their battle plan, the British Commander "detained" Key and his party until the bombardment was over.

We all know the outcome, as described in verses one and two. But then he seems to shift to a proud proclamation of purpose for the future. We seldom sing this verse, but should, to remind us from where we have come and to where we aspire to go.

    Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
    Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
    Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

First he optimistically predicts or aspires that freedom will prevail in future conflicts. This particularly hinges upon the fact that we recognize "the Power" that formed this nation and actively preserves it. His declaration continues with the caveat that we pursue justice and trust in God.

Key has made a declaration of dependence upon the God Who enlightened and empowered patriots to found this nation and for us to follow, who trace their steps in justice and commitment.

It is implied that we, as a nation, be united in the proclamation and prosecution of the proposition that the Star Spangled Banner shall triumph in this nation and world. We do not aggrandize territory or wealth for ourselves, but proffer liberty and self respect to all.

Then the spirit of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" shall circle the globe.

Taxing the Wisdom of Solomon

Stay with me now. This is going to get complicated. A Marine, who is listed as "he" in his unit  assignment, but was a "she" at some time in the past (not sure of the time line) has now decided to "begin a family" and is several months pregnant. (Is that a run on sentence? Only Mrs. Cheney knows.) Now for the ticklish (no pun intended) part. She, now he; or is it he acting as a she (again); or is it she acting as a he acting as a she  is requesting a deferment from deployment to the battlefield, where his fellow Marines are headed. The deferment is based upon the pregnancy and impending birth of "his" baby.

The commanding officer (CO) of the unit is in a quandary.  Irregardless of what he does, he will be wrong. ("Irregardless" is the appropriate word for this situation. It is a made-up, nonsense word which contradicts itself. It fits perfectly.) The position assigned to Mr. Marine (for now anyway) cannot be dismissed or transferred. Nor is it wise to deploy with a shortage of manpower (sorry) and expertise that leaving him/her/it behind would entail. "Irregardless."

So a she who wanted to be a he has now reverted to the she-state. Would you think that the "doctor" who facilitated the "transition" from female to male may have been guilty of malpractice? Or something? (http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/01/mis-mal-and-non-feasance.html) What if this had been a child and the surgery had been done to convert her to a male? Would that be child abuse?

Our old friend Hippocrates said, "Do no harm." It appears doctors and in fact a significant portion of society are all to anxious to jump on the "bandwagon" without doing any real science. And they do this regardless (or irregardless) of whether to patient understands what is involved. Parents want "the best for their child." I would venture to propose an old fashioned suggestion. Sometimes what the kid "wants" and what the kid really needs are not coincident. They need a grownup to make a wise, mature decision.

We all have probably heard of the mechanic who takes a car and begins to replace parts until he happens on the defective one, then returns the "repaired" vehicle, and a very inflated bill. We have a good mechanic who does not react to what I think is wrong. He checks it out for himself and repairs that. Occasionally, I am right. But often "my repair" would cost more and not correct the problem. Kids and sick people do not make good diagnoses. They want immediate relief, regardless of the long term cost. A good doctor will do what is best for the patient, and not necessarily what the patient thinks he or she wants.

Back to our soldier. It would seem that she, then he had a change of mind and is now reverting to their (not sure which pronoun to use, so will got with plural), reverting to their "birth sex." How fortunate that surgical intervention did not preclude that decision. However, the CO still has to make the call on the status of the enlisted person and the combat readiness of his unit.

This would tax and challenge the wisdom of Solomon. He had easy questions, like who was the mother of the dead baby and who was the mother of the live baby? (1 Kings 3) We are living in a society that cannot figure out who is a boy and who is a girl and which bathroom they can use. It is inevitable that our problems will become more complicated, convoluted, and contradictory.

We need a "greater than Solomon." (Luke 11:31

Religious Test?

The snappy comeback is an art form that I, and many others, excel at...about five minutes after we muddled through a remark. An example occurred to me after the recent Senate hearing on Office of Management and Budget nominee.

Senator Sanders, known as "Bernie" to all his loyal sycophants, disgraced himself in his interrogation of Russell Vought for a position at the OMB. Irrespective of the fact that a "religious test" is prohibited by the Constitution, the particular questions that the B man asked were spectacularly irrelevant to the position in question.

With that out of the way, I would like to propose an answer to Senator Sanders' question if Vought believed that all Muslims were "condemned" and if that made him "Islamaphobic."

"Senator, if you mean ‘condemned' as defined by adherents of Islam to mean, ‘Attacked, killed, and even annihilated,' then ‘No.' But if you mean ‘condemned' as Jesus taught, that they are separated from the Truth and we should attempt to bring them into touch with that Truth and lead them to repentance, ‘Yes.'"

And as for being Islamophobic because I disagree with their theology, then does that apply to you for opposing and disagreeing with Hillary, and now President Trump? Are you Hilophobic, Trumpophobic, or even Christian-ophobic because you disagree with my beliefs?

I am forced to agree with our Democratic friends that ol' Bern was not the man for the job.

Officially Speaking

Being a former referee and umpire, I should be one of the last to criticize an officiating call. I have made my share. I once took away RBI's from a batter who hit a ball down the line that I wrongly called foul. I have awarded the ball and denied baskets when those calls were in error.

I confess these with the explanation that they were not game changing calls. To my knowledge, I have never made a wrong call that affected the outcome of a game. Our softball friends had to play one more inning to replace the "lost runs" and win by the mercy rule of 10 runs. Most of my other wrong calls, thankfully, were against the team that won in the end.

With that in mind, think back to the two pivotal games of the Stanley Cup series. (I will not abbreviate it "SC" because some may mistake it for Supreme Court. But I digress.) Games 1 and 6 revolved around two series of erroneous calls. Excuse me if the Pred fervor flavors this, but "egregious erroneous" calls. Wouldn't you think that denying a goal in the finals is serious? A "good goal."

In the first game, the officials vacated the Predators' and Suban's first goal on a fraction of an inch interpretation of off-sides. Not long after that, they ignored a "flagrant," in my eyes, interference by Crawsley (sic) behind the goal and the subsequent shot by the guy in front of the net scored. Call the infraction and the scoring shot would have been whistled dead as soon as the Penguin touched it.

In that game alone, the officiating resulted in a two goal swing towards the opposition. That could be defined as "game changing."

Game 6 likewise had two game changers. Clearly the first, disallowed goal, by the Predators should have counted, except for the "early" whistle. This is particularly frustrating to an "old ref" because the guy making the call was out of position. Remember the "foul call" from my confession? I made it because I deviated from officiating mechanics. Almost from my first day of being a ref, my mentors drummed two things into me. One, know the rules. Two, study the mechanics to be in position to make the application of the rules. "You can't make a call you can't see."

An official who is "good enough" to call a Stanley Cup game should be able to execute his obligation to be in "position" to carry out his assignment. Lost goal number one.

One final caveat was drummed into my head. "Do not make ‘make-up' calls." That is where an official makes a bad call, favoring one team, then makes another favoring the other team to "make up" for his mistake. "Now you have made two bad calls instead of just one," they solemnly intoned. "Bad refs make bad calls. Don't make more bad ones."

So there was a challenge to the Pittsburg goal. It hinged on whether the goal scorer interfered with the goal keeper. He bumped him going to the puck. Recall the fraction of an inch call in game 1? If we are going to be "so picky," shouldn't that standard apply to all games and plays? Here was a genuine opportunity to "correct an error" without making an erroneous call. It would have been controversial, but how about the others? Not to mention that the preponderance of "close" (being charitable here) calls went against the Preds.

This is not new to Nashville. Recall the Titans' game against Baltimore the year after we made the SuperBowl? An arbitrary reffing call erased a Titans' touchdown and "awarded" them two or three inches because a (deliberately unnamed) Raven "tried" to get the Titans to jump offsides. He failed, we scored, and the ref canceled the touchdown. The Ravens won and romped to an "easy" SuperBowl win.

The final, controlling philosophy that was drummed into young officials' heads was that we were not the determiners of the game. Calling fouls to "aid" one team is as bad as not calling fouls. Either way, we are "choosing" the winner. We call what happens; nothing more, nothing less.

Excuse me if I am a little blunt, but "Let the kids play," is a pretty stupid comment. If the officials "let them play" and ignore violations and fouls, they are cheating for the offending team. Calling things as they occur avoids the "homer" designation and overall "bad ref" category.

And, incidentally, there are "correctable errors" where a ref can admit that he was wrong and change the call. Yup, I had some of those too. Fortunately, I had a better ref with me to straighten me out. And I learned from the mistakes. No more early "foul" calls. One time a player ran all the way around the bases. I had my arms up, but no one could hear me shout because they were cheering. "It was foul. Strike two," was the call when the bedlam quieted.

Did I affect the game? Yes siree! If I had let it go, would it have affected the game? You betcha! The "kids" played and the better, or luckier team won. It was not my call.

No more, "Wait'til next year," for the Cubs. Maybe the Preds can scratch their itch soon.

Inconvenient Thoughts

The whole world, it seems, is in an uproar because the United States has withdrawn from the "Paris accords." Their putative purpose is stop or at least slow the progress of "global warming." The operative term seems to be "settled science" when it comes to any discussion of global warming. Let's consider....

Facts are such inconvenient impediments for our fantasies. Almost every article about climate and even weather, for those who know the difference, employs, at least once, the term, "...man-made global warming." It is almost as if there is a "talking point" cheat sheet out there and anyone who writes for media consumption has to check off a certain number of these phrases.

"Man-made global warming is responsible for the severity of hurricanes." "M-MGW is responsible for the relatively lower numbers of hurricanes." "M-MGW is responsible for the tornadoes...." "M-MGW is responsible for the droughts in the west." "M-MGW is responsible for the flooding...." And on and on it goes. I like the designation anthropomorphic global warming. (AGW)

I am waiting for M-MGW or AGW to be blamed for ISIS attacks. No wait, that is President Trump's fault. Let's get serious now. Here are the proven facts about climate change. (Huh? What's that?)

One, the "long term global warming" that is frequently referenced in many articles, regardless of the "man-made" designation, has flat-lined. Satellite temperature scans of the globe have reported a constant temperature for the past 19 years. There may be minuscule variations within the error of measurement, but the overall trend is flat. It has gone neither up nor down.

Two, historic data has correlated the "long term temperature fluctuations" with sunspot activity. Note, the term, correlated. Correlation is not causation. And in fact, the carbon dioxide data is merely correlated to the temperature changes. (Incidentally, the practice of men wearing hats has decreased from the time of WWII. Is that a cause or correlation?) Theories have proposed a causal factor, of CO2 concentration, but it has not been proven.

In fact, the increment in CO2 is far greater than the temperature change. And, just to confound things a little, the CO2 concentration is the air was greater in the past. It declined and is now increasing again. Temperatures have not mirrored those changes. Just sayin'.

Three, and this one is a killer for us chemists. In order for CO2 to elevate the temperature of the ocean, it must trap infrared radiation instead of allowing it to escape back into space. This "trapped radiation" heats the atmosphere, which in turn warms the ocean as it comes in contact with it.  (The mechanics of this will be explained in a "technical" paper to follow if you are curious. http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/06/heat-capacity-technical-paper-this.html)

I read a study by a chemist who calculated the amount that the air would have to increase in temperature in order to raise the temperature of the ocean by one degree. It is staggering. Let me explain.

By way of  illustration, let's take one unit of water. We must consider the "heat capacity," or the ability to hold heat energy. Water holds much more. a cubic meter of water holds 3401 times as much heat as a cubic meter of air at the same temperature.

The calculation then, if we want to raise the temperature of the water by one degree, we would have to take 3401 times as much energy out of the air (one unit) to heat one unit of water by one degree. Our conclusion, taking into account the relative volume of atmosphere and water, is that to heat the ocean by one degree, the atmospheric temperature would have to increase by over 200 degrees higher than the water. And this is only the top 1/10th of the depth of the ocean.(3)

For global warming to be "man-made," due to CO2,  the atmosphere would have over 200  degrees (3). I guess I missed that event. At least, it didn't frizz my hair.

To be completely honest, the entire ocean would not need to be heated. The surface layer is "all" that must exhibit an increment in temperature. But that amount, along with the other "gimmie factors" still dictate that the atmosphere would require a degree of heating that would wipe out life as we know it. Conclusion: any increase in ocean temperature cannot be attributed to atmospheric heating. We would be dead before the ocean could "warm up."

 And for one final consideration, the second reference below (2) reports that studies by satellites measuring heat reflected from the atmosphere is greater when the CO2 concentration is greater. So the carbon dioxide boogie man is really a guardian, out on the edge of space to protect us from solar radiation. (Read the article for more complete understanding.)

We talked about science deniers a while back. (1) Well, that appellation is hanging more firmly around the neck of the global heating contingent. The globe may be heating slightly, but it is not manmade. To paraphrase an old comic strip, "Pogo," drawn by Walt Kelly, "We have found the enemy and he is not us." (Emphasis added. Ed.)

We will not cast aspersions or impute nefarious motives to this movement, though some have been proposed. In practical terms would seem that our concerted efforts be directed in a response to the purported heating rather than a Quixotic tilting at the CO2 windmill.

 (1)http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/05/science-deniers.html

(2) http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#

(3) http://nov79.com/gbwm/htcap.html

(4) http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/05/science-deniers.html