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