Too Many Laws

In one of my first postings I commented that we have too many laws. There are so many laws at the federal, state, and local levels of government that it is virtually impossible to enforce them all. As a result, most of us are, to some extent, lawbreakers. Sometimes the laws conflict with each other, creating a lose-lose situation for citizens. Laws that start out simple become complex and convoluted, in attempts to deal with all possible variations of a problem, and to provide exceptions for special circumstances.

There are two reasons for the surfeit of legislation--one systemic, and one philosophical. The systemic reason is that we have made the job of legislator a full-time job. As a result, lawmakers feel compelled to seek reasons to write new laws and to amend existing ones. We ought to consider having legislative bodies convene only 6 months out of the year, with special sessions for emergencies such as natural disasters and war. The philosophical reason is that too many people believe that is the job of government to solve all problems for us, to provide all basic services for us, to resolve all disputes for us, and to protect us from both the greed of others and our own foolishness.

Three examples of pending legislation serve to illustrate the sort of problems that this combination of systemic and philosophical flaws is producing:

• A California legislator drafted a bill that would prohibit parents from spanking their children. As soon as the bill was proposed, there was a public outcry against it. Radio talk show hosts derided the bill, and outraged parents called in to express their disagreement--apparently, many people still believe that spanking is a valid form of disciplinary action. Horror stories abounded about how an older sister might have daddy sent to jail for giving younger brother a swat on the behind, or how a supermarket clerk might call the police to arrest a mother who gave a swat to her misbehaving child. Most people who abhor the mistreatment of children also strongly resent the fact that someone wants to legislate the manner in which they discipline their children. The author is now re-writing the bill to outlaw selected forms of child abuse such as the use of belts and sticks, the shaking of infants and other acts of cruelty.
• Jet Blue airlines did not prepare adequately for a large snowstorm and stranded a large number of passengers on runways and in airports. Federal legislators immediately began to consider a bill called "the flyer's bill of rights," to force airlines to prepare for such situations and to handle problems with more consideration of their customers. But is such a law really necessary? Won't the ensuing loss of business force Jet Blue to correct the problem without federal intervention, and set an example that other airlines will be likely to follow? Why does the solution to every problem have to be "write another law?"
• California legislators are considering a ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs beginning in the year 2012. The merits of the compact fluorescent lamps are obvious: for a given intensity of light they are cheaper to use, they last longer, and they reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas production. It seems simple, but it's not. What happens when (not if, when) the makers of incandescent lamps develop bulbs that produce comparable amounts of light with similar reductions in power? The answer is that we would have to amend this law, or write a new one. The other unadressed problem is that compact fluorescent lamps do not come in the wide range of sizes, shapes, and brightness that we have in incandescent bulbs. Where I can, I use the compact flourescents. But they don't make them in the small flame-shaped size that the chandelier in my dining room needs. I have a couple of 2oo watt reading lamps in one room--so far I have not found a fluorescent that bright that will fit in those lamps. Flourescent lamps don't work as well as flood lamps in the 'can lights' that are mounted in the ceiling. I resent the idea that some legislator arbitrarily wants to make those decisions for me in a way that does not consider the total costs of replacing the lamps in which compact fluorescents will not do the job, and you should resent it too. I can already envision folks in 2011 running down to the store and buying lifetime supplies of 200 watt incandescents, flood lamps, and teardrop shaped bulbs. Let's watch, too, as all of the auto manufacturers replace the incandescent lamps in brake lights and turn signals with compact fluorescents. Sure, it sounds absurd, but that's because the proposed law is absurd.

Since we are probably stuck with the concept of full time legislators, I propose that they impose a moratorium on new laws, except for true emergencies, and instead do the following:

1. Review the thousands of existing laws and eliminate those that are obsolete, or no longer enforced, or that deal with problems that are better solved by market forces, education, or common sense.
2. For each new problem that seems to cry for a law, consider carefully whether is imperative for government to solve the problem, or if normal market forces or consumer education might offer a better solution.
3. Concentrate on issues that are both big and truly urgent, where only government action can make a big difference--for example, controlling or eliminating street gangs. Instead of making it illegal for a parent to spank a child, institute a mandatory course for high school students on the "best practices" for raising and disciplining children. If an airline treats customers poorly, let the customers use another airline, the one with lousy service will eventually go out of business. Instead of banning the use of incandescent bulbs, legislators could provide incentives for using fluorescents, but they do not need to do that--the incentive is already there in reduced operating costs for some applications. It might be more beneficial to increase the penalties for polluting our waterways.

Governments, please let citizens solve their own problems when they can; limit your lawmaking to the really big problems that are beyond individual control; and if you finish early, just go home.

Propaganda and Terrorism

The teacher of my ninth grade civics class was most enthusiastic about the topic of propaganda. He detailed all of the objectives, elements, and techniques of propaganda, illustrating them profusely with examples from the World War II era. I thought of him today when a friend sent me an email with the following link:
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/

It illustrates the kind of propaganda we could be using in the war on terrorism, but are not. I don't remember all of the elements of propaganda, but most of them are in the video--the kernel of truth, the exaggeration, appeal to emotions, stereotyping, etc. It also illustrates the kind of propaganda that the Muslim extremists are using to bolster their cause.

With or without heavy-handed propaganda, however, I am continually disturbed by how much energy some public figures in our country are expending to criticize President Bush for their political gain, and how little effort they expend to attack the terrorist enemies for our safety and security.

With that in mind, I'll offer a couple more links to balance the scale a little bit: http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/

Now, in the political spectrum David Horowitz is a little far to the right for my taste, but the sites are still worth a read. Even the strongest propaganda contains kernels of truth, and those are worth looking for.

Now, back to the Islamic Mein Kampf:
The comparison to Hitler’s Germany is frighteningly valid, even without the emotional tone of the propaganda piece. The Islamist propaganda machine is a virtual duplicate of the machines established in Germany and Japan. The Muslim radicals are exactly what they claim the U.S. is, and what Hitler was—committed to world domination. The rest of the Muslim people are just like the citizens of Germany were—afraid, or unwilling to stand in opposition to the radicals. Similarly, the comparison of the modern western countries to pre-WW2 Europe is also frightening. Europe is echoing Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. The loudest voices in U.S. today are repeating the pre-WW2 isolationist and pacifist idealism.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked, our government realized that the propaganda attacks had been converted to physical attacks, and it quickly responded with both physical force and propaganda of our own. The terrorists made dozens of smaller attacks around the world, but it took the 9/11/01 attack on the world trade center to awaken our interest.

Since 9/11, Pres. Bush has made, and refused to acknowledge, mistakes that may eventually lead us to a greater disaster:
1. Bush should have completed the mission to stabilize Afghanistan, including eradication of the Taliban and the capture of Bin Laden, before he took on a second target.
2. If, in fact, Bin Laden and his thugs did go into Pakistan, Bush should have given Mushareff a deadline by which to bring us Bin Laden’s head, or authorize us to do it for him. And, no Taliban whatever should have received safe harbor in Pakistan.
3. Bush should have implemented an internal propaganda campaign similar to the one implemented by FDR, to gain the nation’s continuing support for war against Islamic terrorism. Remember? We were all squashing tin cans and saving bacon fat for the war effort. Even Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny were fighting Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito in their cartoons. We are too “politically correct” to do that today. There is no sense of urgency. The president has lost his support.
4. Bush picked the wrong second target, probably because of poor and misleading intellegence. Iran was and is more of a threat than Iraq, as are Hamas and Hezbollah.
5. In Iraq, Bush repeated his Bin Laden error by not neutralizing Muqtada al Sadr and his thugs immediately.

The Islamic extremists will negotiate only to weaken us and strengthen their own position. They may offer compromise to the infidel, but to their own soldiers they preach only annihilation of the infidel.

Where is our sense of urgency?

Negative Trends in Society

A series of articles in the Los Angeles times on the gradual disappearance of some independently owned book stores caused me to ponder the topic of the the ephemeral nature of human culture.

Few of the experiences, the discoveries, the reactions, the thoughts, the inventions, and the ideas of human beings through the ages have lasted very long. Early civilizations had no way of permanently recording their cultures; they passed them from generation to generation by word of mouth. Some of this valuable information has been lost and re-learned several times during the evolution of modern societies. Some information will never be retrieved from past cultures.

One of the earliest methods of recording culture proved to be one of the most durable: information carved into stone tablets. Records of that kind have survived for thousands of years (a mere instant in the time continuum of the universe). But the stone tablets are not very portable. Nor do they hold very much information. They are not easy to reproduce and make available to large numbers of people. But they do last a long time.

Recording methods that have been devised since the development of stone carving have greater capacity and are more convenient to use, but the trend is toward the less and less durable: stylus on wax tablet, ink on parchment, ink on linen paper, ink on paper from wood pulp. The advent of computers has increased our storage capacity for information, but made the data itself even more ephemeral. As storage media, magnetic disks and compact laser discs will probably not endure much longer than the highest quality written books. In addition, the electronic storage media require special complex machines to retrieve the data. Should some great catastrophe befall modern societies, the instructions to construct and use such machines will be locked in that same, inaccessible storage media.

This is not an alarmist cry for the preservation of books and bookstores in our society, and certainly not a call for a return to the use of stone tablets. I suspect that books will be available for many more years. There are many people in the world who are committed to preserving our knowledge for as long as possible. I am pointing, however, to some generally negative trends in modern societies.

One person wrote to the Times that retail bookstores are disappearing because it is so much easier and cheaper to find the books and obtain them on the internet. I find that I have said the same thing. I could wander through used bookstores for years before I would find a copy of an out-of-print book that I want. Or, I can log on to Amazon or Alibris and find a dozen or more copies in different conditions and at different prices, all to be delivered within a week or so. The trend that we are experiencing is that of instant gratification. We no longer have the patience, the tenacity, or the desire for the pursuit of something. We want the item immediately, at the lowest possible expenditure of energy and money. In the extreme, this trend makes us all more selfish and more impatient with those around us.

The second trend that results from purchasing items via the internet is personal isolation. When I buy something on the internet, my only interaction is with a machine, my computer. If I search for a book or another item in retail stores I come into contact with other people. Whether or not these people share my interests and beliefs, the interaction with them is an opportunity to grow and learn, to experience our culture first-hand. Most organizations of collectors have experienced a decline in attendance at their meetings and shows as more and more members choose instead to seek and purchase items through the internet auctions. This loss of personal interaction will make it more difficult for us to engage with others when we have to, say, in some kind of emergency.

These two trends, instant gratification and personal isolation, are not good for us as individuals, or as a society. Before the Socialists suggest that the Government take action to reverse the trends by subsidizing book stores or by limiting internet sales transactions, I propose that we individuals do something about the trends. We probably can not change the infrastructure or the habits of the whole society, but we can change ourselves. When we use the internet, remove personal interaction from the procurement of goods, and satisfy our specific need immediately, we should consider some new activities to provide the psychological and sociological benefits of which we have deprived ourselves. We can pursue a goal that is intangible, and therefore cannot be just bought on the internet. And we can find other people who are pursuing the same or similar objectives, and meet with them in pursuit of the common goals.

The development of a simple and convenient way to preserve our knowledge and ideas may be just that kind of goal. The people who take on that challenge may help to reverse three negative trends.

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.

Crime Scene Investigation

This morning, my front yard became a crime scene!

At about 7:30 a.m., I went out to get the paper. Strangely, the paper was on my front stoop, not in the driveway, as usual. Then I noticed that my garden hose, attached to a bib by the front door was laid across the stoop, across the front walk, and out to the driveway--and the water was running.

I stepped out front, and on the lawn on the other side of the driveway, was a large metal safe that had been cut open with a torch. Lying in front of the garage door were three shotguns. By the safe was an empty handgun holster. Ammunition was strewn all over the driveway.

When I called 911 to report the situation, I learned that police units had already been dispatched to a nearby house. Before long, a neighbor came by, and explained that two safes had been taken from his garage. One was on our lawn. The second was found later in the driveway of a house on the other side of the street, a couple of doors down. The guns all belonged to my neighbor, who is a hunter. Apparently, the only thing missing from the safe in my yard was a large amount of cash.

The neighbor said that a similar robbery took place on the street next to ours about a month ago. Articles from that robbery had been strewn along the footpath in the green belt that surrounds our tract.

Soon, more police units were here, along with a sergeant, and a detective. They interviewed Bonnie and me. We had gone to bed about 10:30 Friday night. Our dogs woke us as usual a few minutes before 7:00 this morning. Neither we nor the dogs had heard anything. The master bedroom is at the back of the house, and we use one of those white noise generators to mask out sound at night. The police checked the area around the house, but found no signs of the perpetrator(s).

Bonnie and I went about our business. We went shopping for groceries that we need for our Christmas Eve dinner. When we returned, the police were still here. They called in a tow truck to pick up both of the safes. It was after 11:00 a.m. before everyone was gone and things were back to normal. The police took my garden hose as material evidence. They said it may have fingerprints or DNA on it.

I wonder if I will ever find out who committed the robbery. I am pretty sure, though, that I will never see my garden hose again.

Gun Control

This is another issue that tends leads to a polarization between the right and the left. An email is going around on the subject, which I will quote in part:

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Those are some dramatic statistics. Certainly, the confiscation of firearms by a dictatorship strengthens the dictatorship, and makes it easier to dispatch any opposition. But it is unlikely that something like that would or could happen in the United States.

The email proceeds to quote some ambiguous and misleading data about the recent 'buy back' gun control program in Australia. Snopes.com provides data that clarifies or refutes the statements in the email:

"It has now been more than 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:..."

Snopes states that the program was put in place in 1997. People who needed guns for professional or valid personal safety reasons were permitted to keep theirs, except for semi-automatic or pump action weapons.

"Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent."

According to Snopes, the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. The absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.

"Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!"

But, Snopes says, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has actually declined over the last several years: 1995 -27.8%, 1996 - 25.3%, 1997 - 24.1%, 1998 - 17.6%, 1999 - 15.2%, 2000 - 14.0%

"In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)"

Snopes comments that Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends.

Although I have never owned a gun, I have strongly opposed any law that would prohibit personal ownership of a firearm. I was even a member of the NRA for a few years. I believe that individuals should be allowed to own firearms for the purpose of hunting, target practice, or personal protection. It appears that the states that allow persons to carry concealed handguns have, in fact seen reductions in armed robbery.

But I see no need for private ownership of automatic or rapid fire assault weapons. These are the tools of war and police action. A private individual has no more need for them than he has for a Sherman tank or an atomic bomb. And I see nothing wrong with the use of background checks to deter people with mental problems or criminal records from purchasing guns. So I think there is a middle ground on the regulation of firearms ownership.

Let's face it, outlawing private ownership of guns will not solve the problem of gun-related crime. The bad guys are going to get their firearms anyway, by deception and theft. The good guys should be allowed to possess firearms too. A person who complies with reasonable laws related to the purchase of his firearm will likely comply with the laws regarding its use.

Politically Correct Education

Elizabeth Kantor wrote in the Boston Globe about how researchers from the University of Connecticut interviewed 14,000 undergraduates at 50 colleges across the nation and determined that seniors know less about American history and government than entering freshmen.

In these 50 schools, students spend 4 years with professors who no longer teach English Literature, the classics, or any of the other pillars of Western civilization. If modern college students study "dead white men" such as Homer, Lincoln, and Shakespeare at all, it's to expose and condemn their patriarchal oppression, racism, and imperialism. Professors ignore Shakespeare's beautiful language and his insights into human nature, and teach instead that Macbeth promoted the domestication of women. They replace Geoffrey Chaucer, Jane Austen, and John Milton with Erica Jong, comic books, or "queer theory." By graduation, the students have learned only that everything that happened before they were born was either irrelevant or wrong.

These dumbed down students may eventually become our corporate leaders, our prominent businessmen, even our senators and congressmen. And, worse yet, they will raise the next generation of children. They think they are smart, but they are totally ignorant of the knowledge of the ages.

You can read Ms Kantor's article here: Unlearning Literature

So if you or your children are in the process of selecting a college, take a close look at the course descriptions. Select a school that still teaches the beauty and wisdom in Shelley's sonnet, Ozymandias. Choose a college where both the exploits and the mistakes of Odysseus, Beowulf, and King Lear are analyzed. Avoid the colleges where the beauty and wisdom of the classics have been replaced by self-serving politically correct drivel. We owe it to our children and to the future of our society.

Elizabeth Kantor is the author of a book titled, The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature. It may well be worth reading.