Dr. Frank Boehm (9/6/18) is back and his hobby horse is still abortion. It almost seems like a obstetrics and gynecology professional shilling for abortion is equivalent to an oncologist advertising cigarettes. I guess Dr. Boehm will focus on the mother and ignore the baby. But wait, if it isn’t a baby, is she a mother? He will focus on the woman.
As I read the article, I noticed the orderly way he laid out his arguments for abortion. I was struck with the same notion that nearly equivalent arguments could be made for another “woman’s issue.” What if we were to defend sexual harassment and assault using those same rationales? Go paragraph by paragraph. (Please note that this is not to condone or approve these actions. The opinion is merely to display the paucity of probative force in the abortion argument.)
1. “Roe vs Wade has been around a long time, 45 years to be exact, and a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 70 percent of Americans do not want it to be overturned.” Well, sexual harassment has been around a lot longer than that, and about 50% of the population would not be upset if it were supported.
2. “Many people across this country have either gone through the process of abortion themselves or gone through the process with a friend or family member....” A lot of people have been harrassed and others have been the instigators of such and conversely been punished severely for their “indiscretions. I read an article recently by a “sexual predator” who was experiencing ongoing “punishment” for his crime nearly 20 years after he had “paid his debt to society.”
3. “A significant number of abortions performed are due to serious and often life threatening illnesses, as well as for serious congenital fetal anomalies, incest and rape.” Later on in the paragraph Dr. Boehm notes that 16% of abortions are for “medical” reasons. He also noted that there are one million per year. (The next point) That means that 840,000 babies are aborted for non-medical reasons. This is quoting his own statistics. And “medical” abortions have been legal since before the advent of Roe v. Wade.
If about one third of legal abortions have been erased as he states, why does he decry the prospect of eliminating another 84% of the non-medical procedures. (1.5 million at R v.W down to 1 million currently.)
4. “... ridding the country of Roe vs Wade would not curtail the number of abortions performed annually; it will only cause difficult problems for patients, doctors and law enforcement.” Harassment is already illegal, and it seems to be pervasive. He might have a point, in that he is illustrating the “scoff-law” nature of our society. “I want to do it. I’m gonna do it regardless of what anyone says.” Not a firm foundation for positing a legal or ethical framework.
5. “The abortion procedure today is much safer due to the widespread use of a cheap medication...” The same can be said for victims of harassment. Rohypno, GHB, and ketamine, along with ecstacy are all known for the anesthetic and amnesiac effects. For instance, the victim in the Vanderbilt rape did not even know that she had been assaulted. If you are going to base your defence on “painless,” the foundation is quite unsteady. And the baby has not yet been polled about pain.
6. “Should abortion become illegal, patients will either return to unsafe termination....” Prohibiting assault will only make perpetrators more clever in their execution of the assault. This repeats the “scoff-law” position, and this ties into his next one.
7. “Abortions are prohibited in Latin American countries, yet these countries report that abortions are nonetheless common....” He explains that the use of drugs, illegally obtained facilitate this. The same is true for “hit and run assault.” The fact that people do it, should have no impact on the legality. And this completely ignores any ethical considerations.
8. “Should problems occur with Misoprostol such as bleeding, infection or failure, doctors and nurses may become involved.” He continues to lament that medical professionals who treat these complications may be subject to sanctions. A short segue here would note that treating gunshot injuries without reporting that is likewise prohibited and accompanied by legal retribiton.
9. “Lastly there is the argument that states have already been successful in limiting the number of abortions performed.” This was addressed above, and is gratefully acknowledged. This merely makes the point obvious. There is a small actual need for this procedure. Let’s turn the tables on Dr. Boehm a little. What if 84% of his deliveries requested or demanded a C-section, regardless of the medical need or justification? Would he be a responsible physician if he acceded to their requests?
Abortion has a legitimate role in medicine, in some instances, and that is neither denied nor threatened. What is “at risk” is the elective procedure that is substituted for effective, practiced birth control. The remainder of his article concludes that we can “...reduce abortions in America without having to go through the Supreme Court, simply by making contraception universally available and cheap.” He had earlier noted that“unintended pregnancies” could be precluded by “ subdermal hormonal implants and intra uterine devices (IUD), which are 99 percent effective.”
Incidentally, the universal availability and low cost of contraceptives are merely red herrings. If abortion were priced at the “going rate” as opposed to being subsidized by abortion mills slurping up public funds, contraception would be the preferred fiscal choice.
His argument about not needing to go through the Supreme Court is valid, if the at risk population would act in a responsible manner. Abortion on demand would then become a moot point and we can go on to more productive pursuits. It seems, however, that his argument is self- refuting. As long as elective abortion is available and legal, a significant portion of the population will continue to ignore safeguards that make it superfluous.
Logically, he should argue for the elimination of legal abortion and promote “safe contraception.” By continuing to provide low cost alternatives to contraception, the system he supports perpetuates the demand for this horrific procedure. A logical shift would allow him to focus on eliminating sexual harassment.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Monday, September 3, 2018
Alcohol
Well, we finally heard from science. For years we have been assaulted by people claiming that “moderate” uses of alcohol are not harmful and in fact can have some health benefits. I am a chemist. Ethanol is a poison. It is a brother to methanol, or wood alcohol, which most know is deadly. Methanol is a one carbon molecule and ethanol is a two carbon molecule.
Just for a little chemical lesson, biochemistry, actually. Our bodies are very efficient at oxidizing substances. Unfortunately for the “user,” the first product of oxiding methanol is formaldehyde. And that is a deadly poison. As our German friends put it, “Nicht so gut.” Well ethanol is oxidized into acetaldehyde, which is far less poisonous. Propanol, or rubbing alcohol is a three carbon molecule which the body breaks into a two carbon chain, and.... Yep, you got it, a one carbon chain and we are back to formaldehyde as a final product. Hardly anyone has ever died from propanol because it is a powerful emetic. I caused the drinker to vomit, thus eliminating the poison from his body.
End of chemistry lesson. So methanol and propanol are both deadly. We can “get away,” we thought, with imbibing a little ethanol, but it is still a poison. It just has a higher lethal dose than the other two members of that particular chemical homology. (High lethal dose means you have to consume more of it to be poisoned.)
So the arguments of “a little is okay” did not ever convince me, but now the British Medical Journal, “Lancet.” Just in case you doubt, here is a link to a report about the report. Or I guess you can look up the original.
Excerpt:
"The most surprising finding was that even small amounts of alcohol use contribute to health loss globally," said senior study author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. "We're used to hearing that a drink or two a day is fine. But the evidence is the evidence."
I guess the old saw, “I don’t drink, or snort, or chew, and I don’t go with guys what do,” isn’t such bad advice. Have a good and sober day.
Just for a little chemical lesson, biochemistry, actually. Our bodies are very efficient at oxidizing substances. Unfortunately for the “user,” the first product of oxiding methanol is formaldehyde. And that is a deadly poison. As our German friends put it, “Nicht so gut.” Well ethanol is oxidized into acetaldehyde, which is far less poisonous. Propanol, or rubbing alcohol is a three carbon molecule which the body breaks into a two carbon chain, and.... Yep, you got it, a one carbon chain and we are back to formaldehyde as a final product. Hardly anyone has ever died from propanol because it is a powerful emetic. I caused the drinker to vomit, thus eliminating the poison from his body.
End of chemistry lesson. So methanol and propanol are both deadly. We can “get away,” we thought, with imbibing a little ethanol, but it is still a poison. It just has a higher lethal dose than the other two members of that particular chemical homology. (High lethal dose means you have to consume more of it to be poisoned.)
So the arguments of “a little is okay” did not ever convince me, but now the British Medical Journal, “Lancet.” Just in case you doubt, here is a link to a report about the report. Or I guess you can look up the original.
Excerpt:
"The most surprising finding was that even small amounts of alcohol use contribute to health loss globally," said senior study author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. "We're used to hearing that a drink or two a day is fine. But the evidence is the evidence."
I guess the old saw, “I don’t drink, or snort, or chew, and I don’t go with guys what do,” isn’t such bad advice. Have a good and sober day.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Leadership
I recently heard a lesson on leadership. It was eye-opening and extremely instructive. It also gave an indication of how hard a true leader must work. It consisted of three points.
1. Leadership is more about responsibility than privileges.
2. Leadeership provides less latitude, not more.
3. The most important expression of leadership is personal.
In ten minutes I learned more from Pastor Allen than I have in hours long seminars and many books. I cannot reproduce everything he said, but this will give an overview of the key points.
Number one: Leadership is more about responsibility than privileges. We all see leaders with the perquisites of office and envy their advantages. But the “benefits” of being a leader are neither the motivation nor means of leadership. A leader is responsible for the progress of his group. A brief summation is that the leader takes the group and individuals someplace where they would not be able to go without him.
If a person “leads” a group to a place that they would naturally go, he is not a leader, but the coincidental role of being in the front of a toboggan or roller coaster. He is not leading, he is just the first one in a line that is going where ever it is going, regardless of whether he is there or not. A true leader is the guy who takes the toboggan and riders back to the top of the hill.
The supposed perks are not a reward, but tools to allow the leader to accomplish the task. They are not there for his enjoyment but for enablement. He can get more done with these “tools” and thus they provide value and assistance in accomplishing the overall task.
The second point builds on this. Leadership provides less latitude, not more. A leader is not given extra privileges as a reward, they are essential in his ability to accomplish the goal. For example, most leaders are among the first to show up at church, and among the last to leave. They have a key to the building because they are often required to be available at nearly all hours of the day.
A leader sets the schedule, usually with the convenience of the following group in view, and he has to adhere to it. A member may wake up feeling “bad” and skip, but if the leader skips, well, nothing happens. He basically has no wiggle room, unless he can find an emergency substitute. And a lot of explaining is required. “Too bad he isn’t as dedicated as the ‘rest’ of us. We are here.”
The third aspect of a good leader is that the most important expression of leadership is personal. A leader’s most important “follower” greets him every morning in the mirror. In other words, self control, and leading oneself is a critical component of any leadership post. We had witnessed a literal flood of failures recently, and some even in spiritual circles.
And the source of their problem, when they honestly confront the issue, is a failure to exercise discretion in their personal life. Self control is a fruit of the Spirit found in Galatians 5:22 and 23. These things are “available” to all believers but not all believers consciously express them And the dearth of practice leads to a catastrophic collapse. Even a “minor” collapse will result in terrible consequences in the life and body of his followers.
James warns about the peril of being a “teacher” or leader in James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.
Romans 2:21 has an intersting take on this. (It is a little out of context, but applies.)
...you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
Teach yourself. How can you lead without teaching?
And Revelation 2 reports two churches that actively followed false teachers. Obviously some responsibility lies in the group to hold a leader accountable. But better far is the leader who polices himself.
That discussion of leadership is a good place to start, even for my personal leadership in my own life. Step up to the responsibility. Dedication requires more than a casual attention in the execution of our daily tasks. And to sum it up, 2 Peter 1 charts the path of successful leadership.
5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice that it begins with “passive” characteristics: faith, moral excellence, knowledge. Then it hinges on self-control, number three. This will produce active expressions of our faith. Perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love are the manifestations that mark a good leader.
Lead on.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:22-23&version=NASB
1. Leadership is more about responsibility than privileges.
2. Leadeership provides less latitude, not more.
3. The most important expression of leadership is personal.
In ten minutes I learned more from Pastor Allen than I have in hours long seminars and many books. I cannot reproduce everything he said, but this will give an overview of the key points.
Number one: Leadership is more about responsibility than privileges. We all see leaders with the perquisites of office and envy their advantages. But the “benefits” of being a leader are neither the motivation nor means of leadership. A leader is responsible for the progress of his group. A brief summation is that the leader takes the group and individuals someplace where they would not be able to go without him.
If a person “leads” a group to a place that they would naturally go, he is not a leader, but the coincidental role of being in the front of a toboggan or roller coaster. He is not leading, he is just the first one in a line that is going where ever it is going, regardless of whether he is there or not. A true leader is the guy who takes the toboggan and riders back to the top of the hill.
The supposed perks are not a reward, but tools to allow the leader to accomplish the task. They are not there for his enjoyment but for enablement. He can get more done with these “tools” and thus they provide value and assistance in accomplishing the overall task.
The second point builds on this. Leadership provides less latitude, not more. A leader is not given extra privileges as a reward, they are essential in his ability to accomplish the goal. For example, most leaders are among the first to show up at church, and among the last to leave. They have a key to the building because they are often required to be available at nearly all hours of the day.
A leader sets the schedule, usually with the convenience of the following group in view, and he has to adhere to it. A member may wake up feeling “bad” and skip, but if the leader skips, well, nothing happens. He basically has no wiggle room, unless he can find an emergency substitute. And a lot of explaining is required. “Too bad he isn’t as dedicated as the ‘rest’ of us. We are here.”
The third aspect of a good leader is that the most important expression of leadership is personal. A leader’s most important “follower” greets him every morning in the mirror. In other words, self control, and leading oneself is a critical component of any leadership post. We had witnessed a literal flood of failures recently, and some even in spiritual circles.
And the source of their problem, when they honestly confront the issue, is a failure to exercise discretion in their personal life. Self control is a fruit of the Spirit found in Galatians 5:22 and 23. These things are “available” to all believers but not all believers consciously express them And the dearth of practice leads to a catastrophic collapse. Even a “minor” collapse will result in terrible consequences in the life and body of his followers.
James warns about the peril of being a “teacher” or leader in James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.
Romans 2:21 has an intersting take on this. (It is a little out of context, but applies.)
...you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
Teach yourself. How can you lead without teaching?
And Revelation 2 reports two churches that actively followed false teachers. Obviously some responsibility lies in the group to hold a leader accountable. But better far is the leader who polices himself.
That discussion of leadership is a good place to start, even for my personal leadership in my own life. Step up to the responsibility. Dedication requires more than a casual attention in the execution of our daily tasks. And to sum it up, 2 Peter 1 charts the path of successful leadership.
5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice that it begins with “passive” characteristics: faith, moral excellence, knowledge. Then it hinges on self-control, number three. This will produce active expressions of our faith. Perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love are the manifestations that mark a good leader.
Lead on.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:22-23&version=NASB
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Execution
We executed Billy Ray Irick on August 9, 2018. And, yes, the “we” is all of us. All of Tennessee executed him through our elected and appointed officials. Were we wrong? No we were not in error, regardless of what some may claim.
There was no “rush to judgment.” Mr. Irick was accorded a trial. He was given over 30 years of appeals. Justice is based on action, and not necessarily how the judgment is administered. If the judgment is unfair or unjust, it is subject to appeal. But if it is distasteful, onerous, or even painful, it is not subject to appeal. Irick’s appeals were not substantive: was he innocent or guilty? They were focused on the process of satisfying the requirements of the law and not the substantiative issue of guilt.
One argument was his mental state. Did he have the cognitive ability to recognize that what he did was wrong? Recall that he fled, and attempted to hitchhike out of town. (Tennessean 8/10) A mental incompetent does not understand culpability. The arguments that he was impaired ignore the fact that he did know that his actions were wrong and behaved accordingly.
The state has determined, rightly in the opinion of many, that violating the rights of others requires some remuneration. In the case of the ultimate offense, taking a life, there is no equivalent “payment,” outside of execution.
Biblically, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” was not a severe pronouncement of retribution, but a merciful, compassionate limitation of “revenge.” When the Old Testament law was promulgated, a person in power had an absolute right to exact any level of punishment on a person who offended him. For instance, injuring an “eye” could lead the offended power person to kill the offender. He often even expanded the infliction of retribution to the family of the offender.
An “eye for an eye” restricted the punitive measures to a level commensurate with the amount of damage. In the instance of murder, the limitation would extend to the ultimate sanction. That penalty is not required, and, our state has correctly mandated the consideration of aggravating factors. A particularly onerous murder may, and does merit the ultimate retribution. To ignore or deny that denigrates and depreciates the life of the victim.
Out of all the current coverage, there was only one article about the little seven year-old girl, Paula Dyer, and what she suffered. Did Mr. Irick gasp for air and turn purple? (Tennessean 8/10) Paula did. The reports mentioned that blood vessels had burst in her eyes, a sign of violent asphyxiation. She was found in a puddle of blood. Irick’s appeal to avoid any pain is poorly supported or buttressed by reality or justice.
We made a statement in this event. The value of life, even a helpless child, is inestimable. Interdicting that life is a capital offense. There is no conflict between justice and mercy. Mercy is linked with and inseparable from a demand for an accounting. Mercy granted a fair trial and appeal. No more can be legitimately claimed. Justice was served.
There was no “rush to judgment.” Mr. Irick was accorded a trial. He was given over 30 years of appeals. Justice is based on action, and not necessarily how the judgment is administered. If the judgment is unfair or unjust, it is subject to appeal. But if it is distasteful, onerous, or even painful, it is not subject to appeal. Irick’s appeals were not substantive: was he innocent or guilty? They were focused on the process of satisfying the requirements of the law and not the substantiative issue of guilt.
One argument was his mental state. Did he have the cognitive ability to recognize that what he did was wrong? Recall that he fled, and attempted to hitchhike out of town. (Tennessean 8/10) A mental incompetent does not understand culpability. The arguments that he was impaired ignore the fact that he did know that his actions were wrong and behaved accordingly.
The state has determined, rightly in the opinion of many, that violating the rights of others requires some remuneration. In the case of the ultimate offense, taking a life, there is no equivalent “payment,” outside of execution.
Biblically, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” was not a severe pronouncement of retribution, but a merciful, compassionate limitation of “revenge.” When the Old Testament law was promulgated, a person in power had an absolute right to exact any level of punishment on a person who offended him. For instance, injuring an “eye” could lead the offended power person to kill the offender. He often even expanded the infliction of retribution to the family of the offender.
An “eye for an eye” restricted the punitive measures to a level commensurate with the amount of damage. In the instance of murder, the limitation would extend to the ultimate sanction. That penalty is not required, and, our state has correctly mandated the consideration of aggravating factors. A particularly onerous murder may, and does merit the ultimate retribution. To ignore or deny that denigrates and depreciates the life of the victim.
Out of all the current coverage, there was only one article about the little seven year-old girl, Paula Dyer, and what she suffered. Did Mr. Irick gasp for air and turn purple? (Tennessean 8/10) Paula did. The reports mentioned that blood vessels had burst in her eyes, a sign of violent asphyxiation. She was found in a puddle of blood. Irick’s appeal to avoid any pain is poorly supported or buttressed by reality or justice.
We made a statement in this event. The value of life, even a helpless child, is inestimable. Interdicting that life is a capital offense. There is no conflict between justice and mercy. Mercy is linked with and inseparable from a demand for an accounting. Mercy granted a fair trial and appeal. No more can be legitimately claimed. Justice was served.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Hippochrissy
Our media in recent times has been suffused with an enormous, all encompassing case of hypocrisy. You know what that is, hippochrissy. Breaking the word down into its components helps to define it. Hippopotamus is an enormous animal that dominates every environment into which it is injected. The name itself is so humongous that we use the diminutive, hippo, to help keep us under arbitrary word limits in articles and publications.
Chrissy is a sweet, darling somewhere in everyone’s memory that brings a fond and wistful smile whenever it or she comes to mind. Merging the two concepts brings us to our popular media and political milieu.
Both “sides of the aisle” are guilty of oozing, no spurting, our prejudices all over the landscape when discussing current obsessions. Let’s pick on conservatives first. The “anthem protests” are roundly and soundly denounced as attacks on our flag and the brave men and women who fought and died to protect our freedom. The kneeling during the presentation of colors and playing of the national anthem is the hippo and sweet chrissy is our love and respect for flag and country.
Nothing the protesters can say or explain will deter nor deflect the criticism leveled from those who disapprove of the protest. No explanation is rational enough, nor heavy enough to resist the bull rush of the hippo.
Viewed from the other side is the hippo of an oppressive society that targets and attacks certain sections of the citizenry. Chrissy is the legitimate right and practice of expressing dissent, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In a reversal of roles, the Confederate emblem smashing movement and the opposition are likewise afflicted with hippochrissy, usually reversing the segment of the population which approves or disapproves. The hippo is that any reference to the Confederate cause in the Civil War becomes an overwhelming endorsement of the repugnant practice of slavery and oppression and those who engaged in it. Chrissy the sweet little thing, is a society cleansed of reminders of this dark, dismal, and disgusting past.
For the objectors, chrissy is our noble ancestors, fighting for their rights against a dominant and oppressive government that threatened to destroy a prosperous and peaceful, for them, way of life. The hippo is the destruction and desecration of legitimate history and the memories of our progenitors.
In mirroring the political divisions of society, hypocrisy continues to divide segments of the population and our refusal to see the other side of the argument threatens to permanently fragment our country. Both sides have legitimate concerns and interests. Peace will only be achieved when we realize and respect others’ points of view.
Very few issues are “all bad” or “all good,” and the sooner we acknowledge that, the better off we all will be. Accepting another view of what we perceive does not mean that we approve or even condone that view. It just means that we are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. And when we do that, society as a whole can begin to heal these festering and legitimate wounds.
Chrissy is a sweet, darling somewhere in everyone’s memory that brings a fond and wistful smile whenever it or she comes to mind. Merging the two concepts brings us to our popular media and political milieu.
Both “sides of the aisle” are guilty of oozing, no spurting, our prejudices all over the landscape when discussing current obsessions. Let’s pick on conservatives first. The “anthem protests” are roundly and soundly denounced as attacks on our flag and the brave men and women who fought and died to protect our freedom. The kneeling during the presentation of colors and playing of the national anthem is the hippo and sweet chrissy is our love and respect for flag and country.
Nothing the protesters can say or explain will deter nor deflect the criticism leveled from those who disapprove of the protest. No explanation is rational enough, nor heavy enough to resist the bull rush of the hippo.
Viewed from the other side is the hippo of an oppressive society that targets and attacks certain sections of the citizenry. Chrissy is the legitimate right and practice of expressing dissent, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In a reversal of roles, the Confederate emblem smashing movement and the opposition are likewise afflicted with hippochrissy, usually reversing the segment of the population which approves or disapproves. The hippo is that any reference to the Confederate cause in the Civil War becomes an overwhelming endorsement of the repugnant practice of slavery and oppression and those who engaged in it. Chrissy the sweet little thing, is a society cleansed of reminders of this dark, dismal, and disgusting past.
For the objectors, chrissy is our noble ancestors, fighting for their rights against a dominant and oppressive government that threatened to destroy a prosperous and peaceful, for them, way of life. The hippo is the destruction and desecration of legitimate history and the memories of our progenitors.
In mirroring the political divisions of society, hypocrisy continues to divide segments of the population and our refusal to see the other side of the argument threatens to permanently fragment our country. Both sides have legitimate concerns and interests. Peace will only be achieved when we realize and respect others’ points of view.
Very few issues are “all bad” or “all good,” and the sooner we acknowledge that, the better off we all will be. Accepting another view of what we perceive does not mean that we approve or even condone that view. It just means that we are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. And when we do that, society as a whole can begin to heal these festering and legitimate wounds.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Tractor Tales At Least III
As many of you know who have been with me a while, I have struggled with lawn tractors and their operation. I got a “new to me,” 54 inch mower earlier this summer and hoped that the problems were over. Well....they kind of are. It stopped mowing but the engine was still running. A quick check indicated that the PTO clutch was operational, so it must be something else. The spring that keeps tension on the deck belt had become disengaged.
Again, those who have been here a while have probably read that my Dad occasionally, well, maybe often, commented that I worked harder at avoiding work than actually doing it. Yep, I did it again. After reattaching the tension spring, I thought that I could “simply” attach a ratcheting strap and stretch the spring enough to enable me to slip the belt over the drive pulley and get back to work. The spring pulls a tensioning pulley that merely puts pressure on the belt to keep it tight on the drive pulleys. Sounds simple. I did not want to have to “fight” with removing and reattaching the big, heavy 54" deck.
So, after about 90 minutes or struggling with getting the strap aligned, and having the ratchet mechanism malfunction a time or two, I decided to try the other way. Two pins drop the deck and I can maneuver it closer to the pulley, slip the belt over it, and then reattach the deck. The final step is what deterred me from doing it first.
That big old, heavy deck, did I mention that before? That big old heavy deck is tricky to align exactly right to get the pins to slip back. It took me all of two minutes to connect the belt, and about 15 to attach BOTH sides to their respective niches. I actually spent more time disentangling the strap from the deck than it took to reconnect it. Total time involved: about two hours. One and a half hours struggling with my “genius” idea to avoid disconnecting the deck and a quarter of an hour to disengage and reconnect. Add in the quarter hour to get the strap loose from all of the hooks I had rigged to “help” and we are ready to mow.
One good thing did come from this episode. If you tape the belt to each blade pulley after disengaging the deck, you will not accidentally reconnect the deck with the belt down around the shaft, like someone with his pants around his ankles. I hooked the deck up twice the first time I reattached it when I first got it. I had to unhook it to get the blade pulley on the other side of the deck engaged. It is so far across that big deck, did I mention that it was heavy? That big deck that you cannot see if the belt is on the pulley or not. So instead of going around the machine to look, just tape the belt in place until you reattach everything. Good trick.
I am not sure that people in heaven can see us down here, but if Jesus has a little “peep hole” that He lets Dad peer through, I am sure that they both had a good laugh at my “ingenuity.” In the final analysis, the mower is running and I got my workout for the day.
Until next time, try doing it the right way. It is probably easier.
Again, those who have been here a while have probably read that my Dad occasionally, well, maybe often, commented that I worked harder at avoiding work than actually doing it. Yep, I did it again. After reattaching the tension spring, I thought that I could “simply” attach a ratcheting strap and stretch the spring enough to enable me to slip the belt over the drive pulley and get back to work. The spring pulls a tensioning pulley that merely puts pressure on the belt to keep it tight on the drive pulleys. Sounds simple. I did not want to have to “fight” with removing and reattaching the big, heavy 54" deck.
So, after about 90 minutes or struggling with getting the strap aligned, and having the ratchet mechanism malfunction a time or two, I decided to try the other way. Two pins drop the deck and I can maneuver it closer to the pulley, slip the belt over it, and then reattach the deck. The final step is what deterred me from doing it first.
That big old, heavy deck, did I mention that before? That big old heavy deck is tricky to align exactly right to get the pins to slip back. It took me all of two minutes to connect the belt, and about 15 to attach BOTH sides to their respective niches. I actually spent more time disentangling the strap from the deck than it took to reconnect it. Total time involved: about two hours. One and a half hours struggling with my “genius” idea to avoid disconnecting the deck and a quarter of an hour to disengage and reconnect. Add in the quarter hour to get the strap loose from all of the hooks I had rigged to “help” and we are ready to mow.
One good thing did come from this episode. If you tape the belt to each blade pulley after disengaging the deck, you will not accidentally reconnect the deck with the belt down around the shaft, like someone with his pants around his ankles. I hooked the deck up twice the first time I reattached it when I first got it. I had to unhook it to get the blade pulley on the other side of the deck engaged. It is so far across that big deck, did I mention that it was heavy? That big deck that you cannot see if the belt is on the pulley or not. So instead of going around the machine to look, just tape the belt in place until you reattach everything. Good trick.
I am not sure that people in heaven can see us down here, but if Jesus has a little “peep hole” that He lets Dad peer through, I am sure that they both had a good laugh at my “ingenuity.” In the final analysis, the mower is running and I got my workout for the day.
Until next time, try doing it the right way. It is probably easier.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
An Alternative Scenario
Imagine that one morning thousands of students “spontaneously” leave their classes and congregate in a central area of the city. (It was probably organized and orchestrated by an outside interest, but for now let’s ignore that.) The teenagers begin, again, spontaneously, to chant a phrase.
“Stop killing our brothers and sisters! Protect our rights. Choose life. Ban abortion!”
How many minutes of network news would that demonstration receive? How many inches of newsprint and how many front page, above the fold, photos would be printed by the major newspapers all across the country?
Are the protests of “our children” based on strongly held juvenile beliefs or are they fueled by special interest groups working for a specific agenda? Consider an alternative. How many teens are killed every year in auto accidents? Or even more germane to the national discussion, how many teens are killed in alcohol-related auto accidents?
Kids are in cars more often, though for fewer hours, than they are in school. And the death toll is staggering. Incidentally the numbers can be found at:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers
Summarizing, they tally 2820 in 2016 and 12% were alcohol related (338). And these numbers are for 16-19 year old drivers. More can be added for passengers in autos driven by older drivers.
Over 55% of teen related auto deaths were to passengers. And right at half of teen deaths occurred to anyone in the car without a seat belt employed.
Yes, protest school shootings, but focus on some solutions other than banning all guns. I would bet that every school shooter was known by someone in his school as displaying suspicious tendencies. Why do we read of social media postings after the fact? Did not one see the threatening posts? Why did they not respond or alert authorities?
And for our teen auto statistics, try a few preventative measures. Don’t get into any vehicle if the driver is “buzzed.” Second, always fasten the seat belt. And finally, only ride with a teen on a specific mission, such as going to school, an activity, church, etc. Just “cruisin” is looking for a “bruisin.”
Protests should focus on the solution of an issue and not just to raise “awareness,” which, frankly, usually means to promote someone’s agenda. Did the “anthem kneelers” advocate or promote any concrete solutions? (There, I should have insulted just about everyone.)
“Marching for life,” is a noble sentiment, but without concrete and executable solutions, it is a futile activity. Let’s not just promote agendas, let’s produce results.
“Stop killing our brothers and sisters! Protect our rights. Choose life. Ban abortion!”
How many minutes of network news would that demonstration receive? How many inches of newsprint and how many front page, above the fold, photos would be printed by the major newspapers all across the country?
Are the protests of “our children” based on strongly held juvenile beliefs or are they fueled by special interest groups working for a specific agenda? Consider an alternative. How many teens are killed every year in auto accidents? Or even more germane to the national discussion, how many teens are killed in alcohol-related auto accidents?
Kids are in cars more often, though for fewer hours, than they are in school. And the death toll is staggering. Incidentally the numbers can be found at:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers
Summarizing, they tally 2820 in 2016 and 12% were alcohol related (338). And these numbers are for 16-19 year old drivers. More can be added for passengers in autos driven by older drivers.
Over 55% of teen related auto deaths were to passengers. And right at half of teen deaths occurred to anyone in the car without a seat belt employed.
Yes, protest school shootings, but focus on some solutions other than banning all guns. I would bet that every school shooter was known by someone in his school as displaying suspicious tendencies. Why do we read of social media postings after the fact? Did not one see the threatening posts? Why did they not respond or alert authorities?
And for our teen auto statistics, try a few preventative measures. Don’t get into any vehicle if the driver is “buzzed.” Second, always fasten the seat belt. And finally, only ride with a teen on a specific mission, such as going to school, an activity, church, etc. Just “cruisin” is looking for a “bruisin.”
Protests should focus on the solution of an issue and not just to raise “awareness,” which, frankly, usually means to promote someone’s agenda. Did the “anthem kneelers” advocate or promote any concrete solutions? (There, I should have insulted just about everyone.)
“Marching for life,” is a noble sentiment, but without concrete and executable solutions, it is a futile activity. Let’s not just promote agendas, let’s produce results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)