Admiral Nelson Character Jug

Viscount Horatio Nelson, 1758–1805

Admiral Nelson defeated the French fleet in the Battle of the Nile (1798), ending Napoleon's attempt to conquer Egypt. He crushed French and Spanish naval forces at Trafalgar (1805), where he was mortally wounded, gaining control of the sea that eventually enabled the defeat of Napoleon's army.

Few figures in history have been commemorated in pictures, medals, books, china, pottery, paintings, prints, and other artifacts as often as Vice Admiral Nelson. One need only do an eBay search on his name to sample the quantity and variety of items available. The celebration in 2005 of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar spurred the production and sale of hundreds more commemorative items--coffee mugs, post cards, postage stamps, coins, etc. As an admirer of Admiral Nelson, I am among those who have purchased a few Nelson commemorative items over the years, including three fairly common character jugs produced by Royal Doulton in the latter part of the 20th century.

Recently I was lucky enough to acquire one that is a little less common, a Staffordshire character jug, about 10 1/2 inches tall.

There is no pottery mark on it, but it was made some time in the 19th century. The medal resting on the orange sash has the inscription, "Nile 1798." The jug could have been made early in the 19th century to commemorate the Battle of the Nile. Or it may have been made in 1898, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the battle.

I know a lot more about Admiral Nelson than I do about Staffordshire pottery. Maybe somebody who sees this posting will be able to offer some more specific information about when and where it was made.

After a fairly long search on the web, I was able to find a picture of one just like it in a September, 2004 catalog from a British auction house (Morphet).

In any case, I am pleased to add it to my collection.

Remember the Maine!

On February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded and sank in the harbor at Havana, Cuba, triggering the start of the Spanish-American War.

Although we now refer to the Maine as a battleship, she was originally designated as a heavy armored cruiser. She and her sister ship, the USS Texas, were considered to be battleship prototypes, and were sometimes referred to as second class battleships.

Maine was 319 feet long, and had a beam of 57 feet. She displaced 6,682 tons. Her main guns were four 10-inch 35 caliber, and her secondary guns were seven 6 pounders and eight 1 pounders. She was manned by 31 officers and 343 enlisted. Maine carried 896 tons of coal, and her reciprocating steam engines gave her a designed speed of 17 knots.

The Maine was commissioned in September, 1895. There are very few good photographs of the Maine, probably because of her relatively short career. This picture is one panel of a stereoptican card.

A second battleship Maine (BB-10) was commissioned in 1902. Occasionally one of the many photographs of the second Maine is mis-labelled as the original. The easiest way to tell the difference is that the 1902 Maine had 3 smokestacks.

Diversity and Immigration

What angers me is that so many people believe that cultural diversity and national unity are incompatible. I was taught and still believe that people of many heritages and cultural backgrounds can work to achieve welfare, education, and common defense under a single American flag with a single American government and a single common language. At the same time, they can cherish and celebrate their individual cultural heritage, including music, literature, art, and language, at home and among friends; and they share it with interested fellow Americans.

Italians, Irish, Germans, Dutch, Russians, Hungarians, Czechs, French, Latvians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spaniards, Chinese, Japanese, and people of many other nationalities have done exactly that. All of them came to America seeking a better life. Difficult as it was, the vast majority of them complied with our immigration laws, and pursued citizenship in accordance with those laws. To them, citizenship was a esteemed accomplishment, worth hard effort to achieve. They never dreamed of converting America into the a duplicate of the country that they left. They all preserved their cultural heritages to a degree that made them comfortable at home and among friends, but not to a degree that might destroy the very structure and values that made America attractive to them in the first place.

As a result, the United States has a truly diverse society. I know that, for example, because my personal collection of books and compact disks contains items by and about authors, composers, and musicians from many of those countries. Many of them were gifts from acquaintaces from different ethnic heritages. My own knowledge is broadened to include them, and my life is much richer because of that. So, I would not support a cessation of the immigration that has made our lives so rich.

But there are many today who enter this country today without abiding by the immigration laws. They do not want to learn English. They insist that we speak and use their language both in daily commerce and in legal documents. They are too selfish and ignorant to realize that, by converting this country into a mirror image of their own, they will destroy the very culture that made the United States attractive to them in the first place. These lawbreakers are encouraged by our own greedy employers and by the legislators who woo them for campaign funds.

Illegal immigration is a dangerous process that must be halted. I have been hesitant to join any of the many web-based organizations that champion the cause. Many of them go too far for me by opposing immigration altogether, or by including extreme positions on other issues in their agendas. But halting illegal immigration is so important that I feel the need to support one of those organizations, even if I will have to accept some chaff among the wheat. One such organization is Grassfire.org. Like many, their agenda carries some baggage that I cannot accept. I posted a link to their site on my side bar.

European Appeasement

The following was in one of the many forwarded emails that I received. I checked it out at Snopes.com. -- The opinion piece was published in Die Welt. I have deleted some of the superflous additions by the senders.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, " Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany , then all the rest of Eastern Europe , where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for -Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.

How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany ?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain 's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China .

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe , Bush realizes what is at stake literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems.

Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe , thy name is Cowardice.

"Sea-Fever" Revisited

In my October 14, 2006 post, I re-published the poem, Sea-Fever, by John Masefield. It is a favorite of mine, and probably one of the most popular poems in the English Language.

I added a footnote stating that an error had appeared in the first line of each stanza in some later printings of the poem. In the original 1902 edition of Salt-water Ballads, the line reads, I MUST down to the seas again... Apparently, some editors, believing that down is an adverb, not a verb, and believing that you do not capitalize the letters of a word mid-sentence, changed the text to read, I must go down to the seas again...

As I learned from my favorite English professor in college, I stated that these grammatical "corrections" alter the meter and change the emphasis of the first line.

Read it yourself: "I MUST down to the seas again..."
Or, "I must go Down to the seas again..."

Now, which of those readings more strongly conveys the strength of the poet's urge to return to the seas?

Although it is no doubt mandatory in our present age of English illiteracy, this belief of editors that they can "correct," or somehow improve upon the works of a writer bothers me. It is much more irritating in poetry, in which the writer may intentionally break the rules of prose grammar to emphasize a point, as Masefield did in Sea-Fever. After all,that's what poetry is all about. Editors know their spelling and grammar, but most of them don't understand poetry that well.

Recently, I obtained a copy of the 1958 Caedmon recording of John Masefield reading his own poems. At last I could hear Sea Fever in the poet's own voice. To my astonishment, the 80 year-old poet reads, I must go down to the seas again...!

His reading did not convey the urgency of the original poem at all. I asked myself, "Was he reading it from one of the erroneous printings? Did he merely overlook the subtle difference from his original verse? Did he just not care? Or was it all of the above?"

We will probably never know the answers. Masefield passed away in 1967. I doubt that anyone ever bothered him with this minor confusion about his famous poem. But for me, it is the difference between good poetry and great poetry. It will always be, I MUST down to the seas again, the lonely sea and the sky...

Sports Mascots

The subject of sports mascots jumps into the news reports every once in a while. The politically correct folks try to force a team whose mascot is some variant on an American indian theme to change its mascot. They have no idea how to address the root causes of racism in society, so they wrestle with words and images instead. They think that if you erase the picture, the prejudice disappears, too. These efforts are a silly waste of time, money and energy. The criticisms are fallacious and inconsistent.

• The critics argue that these mascots are demeaning to native Americans, but that's wrong. The mascots celebrate the strength, bravery, and tenacity of native Americans. They characterize a sports team, not a person. Only people who are already prejudiced or those who are insecure, find any other meaning in them.
• They argue that the images are stereotypes, but that's not the case. The images are no more representative of a modern native American than a photograph of Geronimo is, and nobody thinks that they are.
• They attack only the mascots that relate to native Americans. Apparently it's ok to charicature the Celts, the Trojans, the Cossacks, or whomever. Maybe it would be better to eliminate mascots altogether.
• If someone is prejudiced against native Americans, these images will neither increase nor alter that prejudice. The majority of intelligent souls who are not prejudiced will not change their views as a result of exposure to the symbols and mascots.

I live in California, but when I lived in Ohio, I liked the Cleveland Indians. And I occasionally wear my Cleveland Indians baseball cap as a simple protest against those who get all riled up over this non-issue.

Chief Wahoo represents only one thing to me--a baseball team. In fact, if someone wants to call their team the Retired Engineers, and use a cartoon of a nerd carrying a slide rule (or a calculator) as their mascot, I will not object.

The sports mascot activists should redirect their energies into some significant cause, such as helping the homeless or reducing pollution. As far as the team logos go, it's pretty simple--if you don't like an image, just ignore it. Go watch the Celts instead.

Thoughts on Teddy K

Rock, in his blog, http://truthrock.blogspot.com/index.html, said:

"I think in a time of war if you vote according to the most recent polls, instead of voting according to what you think the troops need, that you are a scoundrel. I think in the case of some politicians, like Edward Kennedy, that the man is just pure evil. He sees the American people want the troops out, and now all of a sudden he becomes very visible in fighting for just that. He doesn't give a fig about our soldiers, nor about America. He has only one goal, that the Republicans be humiliated and that the Democrats expand their power. He is a despicable man."

I would add that those who worship, adore, and believe the pronouncements of the 'hero of Chappaquiddick" are despicable as well.

The Problem in Iraq

President Bush has good reason to be concerned about Prime minister Maliki.

It's hard for westerners to figure out who can be trusted in the Middle East.

Bogie Did It Again

His Noble Excellency Bogie the Intransigent of Leper St George

Bogie is 12 years old. That's getting up there for a shar pei. I think he may be getting a little senile. He has re-started his boyhood habit of marking spots in our living room, a spare bedroom, and one of the bathrooms. He has also started reaching up to the counter-tops and taking whatever he finds interesting.

When we got home from an afternoon movie yesterday, we found that he had raided the countertop and pulled Bonnie's blood pressure pills down. He had broken the plastic container, and he (and/or his companion, Lucy) had managed to down about 5 of the 28 pills (at first we thought there were 48 pills and that 25 were gone). So we wasted no time getting them both to the emergency vet center.

The doctor forced them to vomit. Bogie's discharge had the definite bright yellow coloration of the pills, but Lucy's appeared clear. The decision was to give them both some activated charcoal to pull out any potential residue, and have them stay in the hospital overnight so their blood pressures could be monitored every couple of hours.

So we left them, and went home to a (very empty) house. The hospital called us about 8:30 a.m. with the good news. They had both done quite well overnight, with no blood pressure problems. We could bring them home with no special medication, and just keep an eye out for any anomalies in behavior.

Lucky Bogie! He had no apparent adverse effects and, because we acted quickly, probably no damage to liver or kidneys.

Poor Lucy! She had to go through the purge ordeal and a night in the strange place just because of Bogie's mischief.

Reverend Lady Lucy the Erudite of Helions Bumpstead

And poor Bonnie! She got the vet bill, and she had to spend a lonely, restless night without our two companions, worrying about their condition.

Bogie and Lucy have been home for about 4 hours now, and seem quite normal, albeit somewhat tired from their ordeal. Bonnie is tired, too.

What, no "Spirit of Compromise?"

Well, the new era of compromise and cooperation that the Democrats promised us has lasted less than 2 weeks. The Republicans have not helped as much as they might have, either.

While President Bush prepared a revised strategy for Iraq that barely hinted at some actions that might lead to compromise, all of the Bush-bashers prepared to shoot the plan down, and to scream for rapid withdrawal and specific timelines.

Those who repeatedly call President Bush a liar are themselves lying. They said they would try to work out compromises, but instead, they simply denounce the plan. It also seems to me that if President Bush strongly believes that a temporary surge in troop strength is the solution most likely to be effective, he should offer his critics some movement in their direction.

For example, instead of saying that we will tell the Iraqi government that "our commitment is not open-ended," President Bush could offer a sort of time line, not for our troops, but for the Iraqi government. He could have his experts estimate a reasonable time it would take to secure Bagdad. Then he could propose to Mr. Maliki that the Iraqi forces, with increased assistance from ours, secure Bagdad within, say three months of that estimated date. He could further offer that, if the goal were achieved on time, we would commence a gradual withdrawal of our forces; but if the Iraqi government could not secure Bagdad within that time frame, we would commence a rapid withdrawal. Adding something of this nature to his plan would constitute a step by the President in the direction his critics claim they want to go.

The fact that neither Republicans nor Democrats have offered such a proposal indicates that the concept of compromise is a sham.

I think that no compromise would be acceptable to the Democrats. If they agree to a compromise and the Bush administration is successful in Iraq, the Democrats have less chance of gaining power in 2008. They want to see a Republican failure in Iraq, regardless of the future consequences to the United States, or to Iraq. They will deny this, of course. But their actions, or lack of actions, speak louder than their words.

I have yet to hear one of these critics propose a plan for success, or even a plan with well-defined consequences. The reason is that they do not have one. They have not tried to develop one because their objective is not an Iraq solution, or a middle east solution. Their objective is a Bush failure. So, instead of proposing alternatives, the critics are content to attack the plan, attack the planners, attack, investigate.

People who have never been to Iraq, who have never studied military strategy or history are saying that Iraq is a total loss. They base this assessment not on hard facts or data, but on their emotional desire to get out of an ugly situation or to destroy a president they detest. Or, they are saying it because of what they read or heard from media persons who are equally ignorant and biased.

In another master stroke of understatement, President Bush also alluded to the need to change the "rules of engagement." We have shown ourselves as incapable of dealing with the Maliki government as we are incapable of dealing with our half-ally Musharaff in Pakistan. Maliki must be made to understand that he is required to honor his commitments to us, and that he must not show favoritism to criminals of any sect. As it stands today, a telephone call from a Maliki cohort results in the release of a captured (Shiite) terrorist, no matter how serious his offense. Bagdad will not be secure until the thugs are either killed or jailed. It's a huge mistake to turn a war into a political game. The radicals and the private militiamen must be disarmed and brought to justice. Those in government who aid and abet them should also be called to task for their complicity.

Additionally, the flow of arms to the insurgents from Iran and Syria must be cut off completely. President Bush is right that this has to be accomplished on Iraqi soil. To do this in parallel with securing Bagdad probably requires more that the 20,000 additional troops proposed in the plan. I was surprised that the proposed number was not larger. Even if the 20,000 is sufficient, a larger number could have been reduced as part of a compromise.

But the period of cooperation and compromise among Democrats and Republican is over. Actually, it never really began.

Bush: Too Little, Too Late?

Like many of my countrymen, I have been disappointed with President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.

I was ambivalent about him starting it in the first place. We had not (and still have not) finished the business of stabilizing Afghanistan and putting Osama bin Laden out of business. There were and are bigger threats than Saddam--Iran, North Korea, and the Afghan heroin trade. And we did not have a good understanding of the cultures and behavior of the Iraqi people.

Once committed in Iraq, however, we are obliged to do the job right. That's a lesson we should have learned from the Viet Nam war. Several mistakes at the very beginning sent our enemies messages of weakness. It was not sufficient merely to disband Saddam's army--we should have captured them and disarmed them. We should have occupied all arsenals, and protected them from theft. We should have come down hard on the looters in Bagdad. We should have located and disarmed all of the 'tribal militias' immediately. We should not have restrained our troops with over-restrictive rules of engagement. If we were not prepared at the outset to send enough troops to demonstrate our strength and our resolve by doing these things, we should not have begun the war. Finally, the president failed to establish programs in our own country to keep us all informed, involved in, and supportive of the war on terrorism.

At first blush, it seems reasonable that President Bush gave President Maliki a voice in our overall strategy, since we expect his forces to participate in carrying it out. But Maliki is beholden for his position to radical Shiites who are part of the problem. He has not followed through on his promises.

In his speech last night, President Bush finally acknowledged some of his mistakes, and he presented a plan that should have been implemented long before this. In waiting so long, Bush not only delayed success in Iraq, but he also lost the support and confidence of many Americans.

--Secure Bagdad by creating "gated communities." This will require more troops, and it will require Maliki to be more active in enforcing security. [I wonder, though, if 21,500 additional troops is enough, and if Maliki will ever come through.]
--Crack down on tribal militias, both Sunni and Shiite. [I don't know what "crack down" means. It should mean disarm them, and jail them if necessary. This requires acknowledging that Muqtada al Sadr is an enemy. Disarm and abolish his militia. Make it clear that he can pursue his goals through the elected government, or he can go to jail.]
--In president Bush's words, set "benchmarks" for Maliki and his government. We can support al Maliki only so much and for so long. If he can not or will not take positive control, then we leave. [I see this as a "timetable," not for us, but for the Iraqi government.]

Bush is right when he says that early withdrawal is not an option. That would leave Iraq to be the world's largest terrorist training ground.

But to succeed, we must deploy enough forces to do the job. We must not send those forces in with over-restrictive rules of engagement. Remember, it's not a game--the bad guys do not follow the rules. They exploit our restraints to their own advantage. We must also insist that the Iraqi government take firm control and stop tolerating sectarian interference, and we must give them more training and assistance to accomplish that.

Many people in our nation seem live with a video game mentality. If the going gets tough, if we encounter losses, if progress is too slow, let's just turn off the game box and listen to some MP3s instead. The determination, resolve, and perseverance that made our country great seem to be fading. What we cannot afford, Mr. President, is to let determination and resolve turn into blind stubbornness.

Another Silly Diversion

I just obtained my Peculiar Aristocratic Title:

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: Baron Rob the Free of Leighton in the Bucket Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

Stow, Ohio

For some reason, I started thinking about the town where I lived the first four years of my life. Stow, Ohio, is on state route 91, just north of Akron. When my family lived there, it had a population of about 600. Our acquaintances used to say, "We passed through the outskirts of Stow on the way to Cleveland." Dad would explain that it was not the outskirts they drove through, it was Stow. It's probably a very different place today.

We lived on Williamson Road, a dirt road. Every spring, a truck came and sprayed the road with a layer of oil to keep the dust down. We had a square cardboard sign with numbers on it that we placed in the front window every few days. The number that was right side up showed the driver of the horse-drawn wagon from the coal and lumber company what size block of ice to bring to our back door, and put in our ice box. I can remember the day the ice box was replaced by a brand new Servel gas refrigerator.

Milk was delivered by a man with a truck. On the steps by our back door he would place two glass bottles with cardboard stoppers. The cream was at the top, and we had the option of pouring it off, or shaking the bottle to make the milk richer. In the winter, the milk and cream expanded as they froze, and pushed the cardboard stopper out of the bottle to a height of several inches. A truck from the bakery came by periodically to deliver fresh bread. Sometimes we children would get treated to a fresh eclair.

At the north end of Williamson Road was Marhofer Avenue, which led to the street on which was Stow High School, where my father taught English. My brother attended Stow High, and joined the Navy when he graduated. At the south end of Williamson Road was Kent Road, which had Joe Fisher's grocery store on it. Mom used to take me with her to Fisher's. She walked, and I pedaled my little red fire truck. Mom gave her list to Mr. Fisher, who stood behind a counter. Behind him, floor to ceiling, were shelves with all of the packaged goods on them. He used a long pole with a 'grabber' on it to pull the items we needed from the higher shelves. "We are all out of Clabber Girl baking powder," he would say, "will Calumet be ok?" He put all of our items in paper bags, and we carried them home. Mother used that Calumet baking powder for cakes and cookies. I remember sitting in the kitchen while she baked. The radio broadcast the daytime dramas of the day: The Romance of Helen Trent, Ma Perkins, Backstage Wife, Lorenzo Jones and His Wife, Bell, Our Gal Sunday. "Can a girl from a small mining town in Virginia find happiness as the wife of a wealthy and titled Englishman?'' I don't know if she did or not.

I have some dim memories of the people on Williamson Road. We lived in a side-by-side duplex. A woman named Mrs. Moon lived in the other side. I cannot remember what she looked like. Across the street lived Billy Grey and his family. I used to play with him in his back yard. Once he took me up into the attic and showed me a whole trunk full of money. When I told my Dad about it, he explained that the money was Confederate bills, and absolutely worthless. On the same side of the street and down a few doors lived Kathy Cole. She, Billy, and I liked to climb the trees in her front yard.

I think I know why I do not have many photographs from the Stow years. One day I opened the door to a cabinet in the living room. In the cabinet I found some funny little metal spools with paper wrapped on them. When I unrolled the paper, I found some plastic like stuff rolled up in it. The plastic turned sort of white as I unrolled it. Mom was very angry when she saw what I had done, and told me not to do it again.

One evening, as we sat on the front porch, a stray dog -- a white spitz -- came into the front yard. Mom said, "Come here, poochie," and he came up on the porch. We gave him some food and he stayed with us. Dad put a 'found dog' notice in the paper, but noone claimed him. Since Mom called him "Poochie," I thought that was his name, and it was his name from then on.

A few streets away lived my uncle Albert and his family. He was a research chemist for Goodyear Tire and Rubber in Akron. They remained in Stow for several years after we moved north to Cleveland Heights. At first, the lots on either side of his house were vacant. Then a house was erected on one of them. When someone began to build a house on the other side of his, Uncle Albert decided that Stow was getting too crowded, and moved to a 200 acre farm near Mogadore, Ohio.

Some time in the early 1940's, my father accepted a position at Cleveland Heights High School, about 3o miles north of us. He used to commute, staying in a room up there during the week, and coming back to Stow for the weekends. At first he drove a Ford Model T. Once, as he headed north, the forward gears on the Model T broke down. He had to make his way back to Stow in reverse gear. Next, he bought a 1928 Hupmobile. I remember that the Hupmobile had a roll-up window shade on the rear window. The next car was a 1936 Oldsmobile that we used until a couple of years after we moved to Cleveland Heights in 1944.

Rob, Poochie, and the 1936 Oldsmobile

National Minimum Wage

Apparently the Congress really wants to raise the minimum wage, and the President seems to be leaning toward agreement on the idea.

I suppose I should not get very excited about it because California, where I live, already has a minimum wage that is about the same as the amount that Congress is going to propose. Having owned a small business for a few years, I am opposed to the concept of a minimum wage, and I object to increasing it. Among the reasons are:

• The minimum wage is supposed to help the poorest of our working bread winners make ends meet, but it does not. Surveys have shown that only a small portion of the minimum wage earners are sole providers for a family. In fact, the majority of minimum wage positions are between-term or part-time jobs for students, or are held by people who are supplementing the income of a primary wage earner.
• The cost to an employer is much more than the amount of the minimum wage increase. Other payroll-related expenses increase as well. Among these are the company contributions to Social Security and Medicare and the cost of workmen's compensation insurance. That means that a $1.00 per hour increase can cost the employer $1.50 per hour. For a small business, this can be a crippling increase in labor cost.
• Raising the minimum wage is inflationary. When an employer increases the rate for minimum wage personnel, it has to provide corresponding increases to the more senior employees and to first-line supervisors. Otherwise, the entry-level person or the summer hire is earning as much as, or more than,his supervisor. Large companies simply raise their prices (and take profit on the increase) to compensate for the added payroll expenses. Many of these companies provide the very products and services that the minimum wage earners are likely to consume--groceries, fast food, clothing, etc. Thus, the employee's small increase in take-home pay is mostly chewed up by an increase in living expenses. It's like trying to fly by pulling up on your own bootstraps.
• Everyone else also pays for the inflation caused by the minimum wage increase. So it is not the government, or the large corporation, that funds the minimum wage increase. Every citizen does. In effect, each and every one of us takes a small pay cut in order to pay people more money even though they have not increased their productivity. The minimum wage is not merely inflationary; it is forced charity in a very thin disguise.
• This forced charity is regressive. Middle and lower income people pay a much larger percentage of their salary for the products and services of minimum wage employees than the wealthiest 1% do.
• Increasing the minimum wage reduces the number of available jobs. Smaller businesses are not be able to raise their prices because they will become non-competitive and lose sales. Instead, they reduce their work forces. Or, worse yet, they just go out of business altogether. Larger companies may try to relocate their production facility to another country.

Unfortunately, life is tough, and not always fair. Many people in our country look to the Government to solve their personal problems. And many politicians ignore the facts and cater to this tendency.

If someone really wants to earn more money, he can do so. He may have to give up cigarettes and alcohol and cancel his cell phone account. And he may have to go to school to gain more knowledge and skills. Many have done these kinds of things, and increased their income by doing so. When they do, their increase in income is generated by an increase in productivity, and it is not inflationary.

We should remember, too, that in our country the average CEO makes 369 times the money that the average worker makes. Assume that the CEO of a company with 1,000 employees receives $10,000,000 a year. If he reduces his salary so that he would have to struggle along on a paltry $2,000,000 per year, and divide the remaining $8,000,000 of his salary among his employees, he could give them all about a $2.90 per hour pay increase. At least this charity would be paid by someone who can afford it more easily than you or I.

No politician who seeks campaign contributions would ever suggest that corporate executives are overpaid. How popular would a politician be if he proposed a national maximum wage? Of course, a national maximum wage makes neither good economic sense nor good political sense. The minimum wage makes political sense (it brings in more votes without alienating wealthy campaign contributors), but it does not make good economic sense.