I approved this message part 2b - Immigration

As I promised Ashley B back when I posted I posted on Foreign Affairs, I'm going to post a comment or two on immigration. This topic goes well with my discussion on Foreign Affairs and I had originally planned to bring it up then. Thanks to Ashley for reminding me.

When I look back at my previous posts, I commented somewhat on immgiration back in June (see that post here). At the time, I was complaining about the argument that so many make, that there are jobs that Americans simply won't take. I won't repeat everything I said there, but to summarize, I said this argument was baloney.

With that argument taken away, the question is what to do about the immigrants? Well, the first thing is to acknowledge that all Americans trace their roots back to immigrants. If you believe the Biblical account of creation, and I do, we all trace back to somewhere outside Baghdad (wouldn't Saddam be proud). Every other account I've seen also traces humanity to somewhere in Mesopotamia. Either way, we're all immigrants.

That means we should allow immigration, but for economic reasons, we should limit it. But wait, there are already laws on the books to handle that, why don't we just enforce the laws. Beginning the day I take office, I will endeavor to STOP illegal immigration. Instead of deciding for myself which is best, a wall, electronic surveillance, etc, I will trust the head of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to make that decision. Then I will empower him (read that $$$) to accomplish the goal. If it's not accomplished within one year, a new head of ICE will be found.

Once that matter is settled (the first day in office), I will take up the matter of illegal immigrants currently in the US. This is quite delicate. These individuals are human: man, woman or child and we have used their labor for the last several years. Yes, they are law breakers, as my conservative friends will point out. But they came here with hope. They should not get preferential treatment over legal aliens, but as humans we can't simply deport them all.

I will be accused of providing amnesty, but I believe we have to let them stay as legal aliens for a time. I believe (not certain) that legal aliens can stay for up to two years on a work visa. The illegals should be given this same length of time as a "pass". Then, if they are willing to exit the country, they can reapply for legal immigration. Due to the number of people involved, it may be necessary to phase in the two year "pass" so that they don't all exit at the same time.

Any comments?

The State of the Union

I promise, I will get back to my presidential platform building soon, I just had a few pet peeves pop up and I can't stand it..



Tonight was the State of the Union address. As required by the Constitution, the President must "from time to time" address the Congress. Think of it as the CEO telling the Board of Directors where he plans to take the company. It's a good time for him to challenge the congress on the direction he wants to take the company. He is, after all, the President.



I have several pet peeves with this whole setup. If I do this right, I will offend my conservative friends as much as my liberal friends.



First of all, this is supposed to be an address to congress. For most of Bush's 50 minutes, he did pretty good at this. But then he lapsed into talking to the TV.



Second, it's supposed to be "from time to time". Bush has done a pretty good job speaking to the American people when it's required, do we really need a State of the Union every year?



Third, why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view? Frankly, the few times I've listened to (or read) the response, it just sounded bitter. This year, the Democrats even carried it further, generating a pre-sponse in some cases and generating a written response immediately after they President spoke. Who are they fooling? That's not a response.



Lastly, the political pundits. I made the mistake of listening to two tonight. One called Bush's speech and understandably marginal speech by a lame duck. Give me a break. Walter Cronkite didn't use that many cliche's. Even Dan Rather could be more original.



None of this addresses the CONTENT of the speech, rather it addresses the STYLE of the speech and it's responses. Maybe if there was truly some content, I would have commented on it.

When is a rebate not a rebate

Currently, congress and the president are clamoring all over each other to give a rebate to the American people. The current plan is $600 per individual, $1200 per couple and $300 per child. A family of four could get a check for $1800.

I'm not holding my breath. In fact, I cringe every time I hear the news.

The first thing that bothers me is that it is NOT A REBATE!! (Pardon the shouting, it's really not good for my blood pressure). I checked and dictionary.com has 12 definitions for rebate, the first being "a return of part of the original payment for some service or merchandise; partial refund." Many of the people targeted by this so-called-rebate actually never paid anything in taxes. So a partial refund to them would be $0. Actually, that's a complete refund.

The next thing that bothers me is the reason for the so-called-rebate. It's so people will spend it. Hmm. with the push towards digital TV's, that would make a nice down payment. I can see the ads now "We will cash your so-called-rebate check for you and use it as a down payment." Mark my words and when the ads come out, come back and show me (or maybe I'll show you).

Yes, some economic stimulus might be needed, but I'm not sure this is the prescription. How about a national economic education plan that says you can't spend yourself out of debt?

I approved this message part 3 - Isolationism

This is the third plank in my platform building. The subject matter is isolationism vs becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations. There is one presidential candidate who is currently advocating that we stay out of the business of other nations.

The quote about entanglement goes to Thomas Jefferson when he said "Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations except as to commerce ..."

Good ole' TJ made a lot of sense. The more we get into the business of other nations, the bigger the mess.

But even in TJ's day, there were exceptions. The Barbary Wars were fought during his day and another quote from him was "Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute." Basically, these bad guys (evil doers if you allow me the term) were raiding American ships and taking hostages. Common policy at the time was to pay ransom (tribute) to the bad guys. TJ disagreed. He helped built up a good Marine force and fought the Barbary wars. Ever hear the Marine song? The shores of Tripoli (modern day Libya) is where one of the famous battles was fought.

In seems to me that today is not so different from TJ's day. Oh, we don't have pirates raiding ships, but we do have them flying planes into buildings. And they don't demand ransom, but they do make other demands.

So based on TJ's wisdom, I think it's sometimes necessary to become entangled. This lesson was also learned after WW I, when the US sought to stay out of WW II. But we got drafted with the sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor. Same goes for 9/11.

Some may disagree, but that takes care of us getting entangled in Afghanistan and Iraq, probably in other Middle Eastern Nations. And possibly in other nations, to avoid another 9/11. But what about the affairs of other countries? Say a country in Africa or South America where possibly a dictator kills his own people?

This becomes dicey. These nations probably pose no serious threat to the US, they can't fly planes into our buildings, nor attack from the sea as the Japanese did. Our standards and our democracy may not fit them.

I believe that there are some issues that transcend governments and nations. There are times when, as human beings, we should step in and either 1) provide assistance or 2) provide defense. This means that we should provide aid when a country needs it, provide food to the people. It may be necessary to work around the leadership of the country and work with some people who fight against the leaders. And there may be a time when it is necessary to topple an existing government. If this was reviewed in the 1930's & 1940's, Hitler's extermination of the Jews would be a good example, in the 1970's Idi Amin (killed an estimated 500,000 and at one time bodies floated on the Nile in quantities sufficient to clog a hydro-electric dam).

If an existing government is toppled, it may be necessary to rebuild, just was we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII.

Note that Iraq falls into this category (in addition to the defense). Saddam was definitely a bad dude. With machines that were effectively meat grinders for entire human bodies, the man needed to be removed from power.

Where do you draw the line between an Idi Amin/Saddam Hussein/Hitler type and a Kim Jon Il? Which leaders/nations should be taken out and their countries rebuilt? Well, you can't face them all at once. You have to tackle them one at a time. And you have to hope that, like Libya's Muammar al-Gaddafi, some of them will have a change of heart before you get around to them.

This is Randy Barnett and I approved this message.

I made the bed

I just completed a task that I deem to be silly - making the bed. Seriously, we slept in the bed last night and it is messy, but who's going to see it? Tonight, we'll get in the bed and mess it up again, so why make it? Ben Franklin once said that a job done well need never be done again. Good Ole' Ben obviously never made the bed. Tomorrow morning it's going to need it again.

There's no one coming over and even if they did, they wouldn't come upstairs. No one would know if I skipped this menial task. No one except my wife (my son too, but he couldn't care less).

So, given the way I feel about it, why would I do this? Simple - my wife asked me to. Since I'm the last one up, I get to make the bed. If I get up before she goes downstairs to leave, she will make it, or we get to make it together, but since I slept a little late, she asked me to do it.

And I know that when she comes in this afternoon, she will notice it. She may not say anything, but if she does it will make my day complete. Regardless, she will notice it. And anything that I can do to make her just a little happier, well it makes me happy. Not that I do this for the reward, no even if she doesn't notice I'd still make the bed. Simply because she asked.

Somedays, I don't make the bed. I always have a good excuse, I forgot or I was too busy. I usually explain it to her. She doesn't get mad, occasionally she will remind me how important it is to her (I still don't understand). But I know she will forgive me and she will not hold a grudge. She's wonderful that way.

Even in all her wonder, she's not perfect. I think she's beautiful, strong and wonderful, but I know she's human and therefore must have faults, even if I don't see them (and certainly wouldn't mention them if I did).

So why write about this? Well, the last several days, I've been involved in a multi-way discussion on God's Grace and Truth. (Read about it here). While making the bed, I realized that my making the bed was somehow tied to the topic.

Sometimes I don't understand why God asks me to clean up a part of my life. It seems silly. No one will notice and it really won't make a difference. Sure I can clean something up, but it's just going to get messed up again. So why do it?

Because I love Him. I know that He will notice. And maybe, just maybe He will say somthing about it. But even if He doesn't, I'd still do it. I don't do it for the rewards, I do it because He loves me.

Unlike my wife, He is perfect. He has no faults. Some of the folks in the other discussion just don't get that, but it doesn't change the facts. So if He's perfect and my wife isn't (she's close), how much more should I do for Him?

Oh, and if I don't do what He asks? He'll forgive me. I always have a good excuse, I forgot or I was too busy. I usually explain it to Him. He doesn't get mad, occasionally He will remind me how important it is to him (I still don't understand). But I know He will forgive me and He will not hold a grudge. He's wonderful that way.

God, please forgive me when I fail you. I know it happens way too often. Please point it out to me when I do. I want to please you, even when I don't understand the reasons. Amen.

Now, I think I'll go check that bed one more time...

Weekend Gambling - the evils of gambling

This past weekend, my wife and I slipped out of town over the mountain to nearby Ashville, NC. We were hoping to play in the planned 4inches of snow, but alas, less than one inch fell, no playing. We did manage to do a lot of talking and planning, which was our major goal.

On Saturday afternoon, our weekend was shattered along with a window on our car. Seems someone saw my wife's pocket book on the floor and decided he wanted it. (Lesson#1 - always hide valuables). We immediately called Buncombe County Sherrif and started calling credit cards (Lesson #2 - you & wife should have different credit card numbers). After four calls from the business man and two hours of waiting, the deputy showed up to take our statement. No evidence was collected. He gave us no hope of recovering any of the stuff and reported that there were several such incidents (then why aren't they trying to stop it?)

Our afternoon/evening shot, we ate dinner at a local restaraunt (using a different card I have) and we went back to the hotel with the window poorly plastic-ed over. The next morning, my son (who was still home) called and said they caught the guy. A nearby township had caught the guy who broke in and they had my wife's purse. He had broken into another car and the people got quicker response. They saw a van on the street that had been parked near them, the man was stopped and arrested in possession of my wife's purse.

The police officer told us that the man had gone to Harrah's Casino and gambled & drank all his money away. He then drove 40+ miles on the interestate before trying to get some cash. He was arrested for DWI, Breaking & Entering & posession of stolen property. It will be up to Buncombe County to determin if he's arrested for B&E of our car.

This brings me to the evils of gambling. I admit, I can find nothing Biblically wrong with gambling. I even wager a small bet from time to time. When I went to Vegas last August, I played slots (around $20 if I recall). But the price of having a Casino in the area is that thugs like this guy will come around.

When you gamble away money you need for something else, you're wrong. The casino's cater to these people and they should share in the blame. When a casino comes to your area, you can expect more trouble like this.

Oddly enough, one of the discussions my wife & I had was around moving, possibly to the area we visited. Our minds are set, that's not where we want to be. Sure the same thing could happen anywhere, but we don't need to improve the odds for the bad guys.

I approved this message - Foreign affairs

I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.

But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.

My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)

I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).

I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).

Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.

Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.

It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.

I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.

Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.

Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.

South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.

That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.

Approval rating climbs

Yes, my approval rating is at 100%. Or rather, my disapproval rating is 0% - no one has complained about any of my ideas on national defense. If you haven't read it, I wrote a long discourse (evidently too long for others to read) on what I think presidential candidates should do regarding national defense.

I received an email this morning that said that, not only had my approval rating increased, I am now on the first page of google. When you google my name, my blog is the fourth hit. This is a TREMENDOUS improvement!! And I owe it all to my constituents (both of you).

I promise to get back onto this presidential platform soon. My job is such that in January or February I spend a week or two closing out the last year and then starting up the new year. This year, the process hit earlier and it's been the past week and coming week. Hopefully, work can die back down next week.

Thanks again. Remember, I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.

P.S. Not sure why this person "googled" me this morning. Maybe she's checking up on me.... Does that mean I should check up on her??

I approved this message - National Defense

As I've been promising, I am laying out what I think are critical issues for the presidency of the US. As this thread gets closer to the actual facts, it gets more serious. None of the issues are as serious as national defense.

On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.

911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.

My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.

Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.

In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.

Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.

The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.

Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.

Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.

Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.

This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.

I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.

P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?

I endorsed this message - Platform building

Last week I announced my candidacy for the president. Then I explained that I was actually just planning to lay out what I thought was important for the candidate I intend to choose.

It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.

I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.

I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.

In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)

What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?

Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.

My name is RB, I endorsed this message and I'm running for president

When I turned 35, I announced to all my friends and neighbors that I was running for president. I had examined all of the recent candidates and announcements and decided I was equally qualified.

However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.

Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.

So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.

Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.

So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.

Happy new Year

I've been working lightly the last two weeks and now it's time to start back in ernest. The holidays were wonderful, even if it ended with a loss at the Chic-Fil-A bowl.

I quit doing New Year's resolutions several years ago. I tried to restart it a few years back, but couldn't get anyone to work with me. It always seems that any day is a good day to start being healthy, saving money and creating whirled peas, why blame it all on New Years.

Happy 2008 to all

Do opposites attract?

You've heard it before, opposites attract. I've even seen a few cases where it seemed to be true, my wife & I for one. My daughter & her husband are another. She's a planner, he's free wheeling. She expresses her emotions, he holds them in. As for my wife and I, let's just say we have a strange and wonderful relationship -- I'm strange and she's wonderful.

I heard once a saying (I think from Larry Burkette) that in a marriage if both people are the same, one isn't needed. So what makes a good relationship?

I think you have to have a common background. Some fundamental values that match up. It also helps if you genuinely LIKE each other. I've seen cases where a couple were in love, but didn't like each other. After a while, they tire of each other. I've seen cases where the fundamental values didn't match. When times get tough, they go separate ways. When all that's left is the basics, the basics just don't match.

I've known a couple who were in an arranged marriage. In their culture, this was the norm. When they were young, the parents chose them to be together. They had a choice when they grew older, but they decided if the parents set this up, they would go through with it. Today, they are doing very well with two children. They actually liked each other and they had the same fundamental values.

I also believe it takes a commitment to stay together. Both people have to have the commitment. I've long said it takes two to keep a marriage together, but only one to split it apart. Without a commitment, there are two many times where it would be easy to walk away. Or walk to someone else.

Merry Christmas

Hope all of you have a wonderful Christmas!

How old is that manager?

Lunch today was on the road, at McDonald's. Hey it was good enough for our former president, it's good enough for me.

Anyway, the sign says they are hiring managers, crew members, openers and closers. For the openers and closers, it said they had to be 18.

But there was no disclaimer on the managers. Can they be 16? I know a 16 year old can work there. A lot of the managers ACT 16 (or even less).

How would you interpret the sign? How old does the manager look at your local Mickey D's?

Man shoots iHome

That's what the headlines should have read this morning. I don't know how many times that thing has gone off when my son has been somewhere else. With a sound something like a smoke alarm (but not quite as loud), it's hard to ignore.

It's also hard to figure out how to turn the stupid thing off. Lots of buttons, turn "dials", etc, they just don't seem to work. Then when I get it silenced and return to bed, I begin to drift off again only to realize that I only hit the snooze, not the off button.

I fugure a .45 slug in the top of it should manage to silence it for good. Since I bought the thing, it shouldn't break any laws. And I think it could be considered a mercy killing.

Ok, I'm offended

I work for a large company, one of the Fortune 500 companies. Today, I received a Holiday message from a Vice President over me. There are three levels of management between us, two between him and the Chairman, President and CEO (all one person).

The greeting said "Season's Greetings", "Happy Kwanza", "Boas Festas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Joyeuses Fetes" and "Feliz Navidad".

Where's the Merry Christmas? They can't argue that they're trying to keep the religous aspect out, Hanukkah is a religous holiday.

So why do they ignore Christmas? I'm offended.

Maybe I should send him a note back to say Merry Christmas.

War in Iraq

I don't often post about the War in Iraq or the Global War on Terror. Too much like talking about politics.

But I couldn't help but notice a few changes. The British are moving out of Basra, because they are no longer needed. And yesterday, Major General Joseph Fil, a commander of multinational troops in Baghdad told reporters that things had changed in Baghdad.

"The number of attacks against citizens in Baghdad has dropped by almost 80 percent since November, 2006," said Fil.

Now isn't this a good thing? Yes, it's going to take some time and yes the cost has been high. And I predict there will be times of increasing violence. But this is a good thing.

American troops should be pulled out as soon as possible, but we must be careful not to pull out too quickly. We made a mess when we pulled out of Vietnam, we shouldn't repeat one of our past mistakes.

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow..

No, it's not snowing here in the south. I did see some snow a couple weeks ago when I was up in DC (my plane waited over an hour on de-icing at Dulles Airport).

But I saw a news report this morning about the ice/snow storm that has hit the north east. In Maine, the governer has even asked people to stay inside.

In the south, we get made fun of everytime it snows. We get an inch or so of snow and everything closes down. But in this case, Maine closes down. Oh, they say that we close with an inch of snow, there snow is much worse.

But, I'd be willing to bet that we have about the same number of closures per year as the Maine-ites.

So a word to northerners everywhere, don't poke fun us at when we close down. We want our snow days just as much as you do. We just have to take them when we can, with only an inch of snow.

I am Legend

We went to see this movie tonight. If the showing we were at was representative, it will make a lot of money this weekend.

Overall, it was a good flick. I'm an SF fan, so last-man-on-earth movies are nothing new to me. But, hey, it's got Will Smith, so it ought to be good, right? My wife was terrified at some of the scenes, she nearly came out of her seat. My sister (who hasn't seen it - we talked after the movie) said she thought it was a horror movie. In some ways, it was. But the horror was reasonable horror (what an oxymoron!)

What surprised me the most was the religious references. They were done in good taste, if a little bit hurried and pushed. Even Smith's character declaring there is no God made sense. And religious folks will be glad the way it was all handled.

Overall, a good movie. Made for the big screen, with surround sound and all (there was glass falling behind us in one scene - neat). Spend the $9 (or less for a matinee), don't wait for the DVD. And warn your wife that it could be a little bit bloody and jumpy.

Freedomswatch part 2

I got an email tonight that said that NBC has agreed to accept the Freedomswatch ads. (Last Friday I posted a note about the NBC refusal. See my previous post here.)

NBC said "We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."

See the full article here.

I don't often do petitions, and now I'm wondering about the sanity of signing a petition asking for ads....

Crossing the Rubicon

I heard a new phrase today and it generated all sorts of mental images. The phrase was crossing the Rubicon, the idea is that you deliberately go past the point of no return. The origination of the phrase is to Julius Caesar's day, where he sent his army across the Rubicon River, starting his invasion of Ancient Rome. Once his people crossed that river, there was no turning back, the war had begun.

I heard the phrase in a commercial for an anti-divorce book or program to be used by couples. The individual said that he and his wife discussed divorced and nearly "crossed the Rubicon".

I know two couples whose marriages are in trouble and this image fits very well. One couple has already crossed the Rubicon, the second is close, if not already past. The image is that they are headed to this point, in some cases with increasing speed and the force behind them continues to push them. At some point, and you could almost draw a line, they have no way out.

An oft used equal phrase is burning bridges and a less used phrase is burning boats. I think it was Cortez who ordered his boats burned when invading Mexico to keep his troops from attempting to retreat.

Did Drew Peterson kill his wife?

All over the news, you'll see stories like this one about Drew Peterson in Illinois who is accused of killing his fourth wife. Her body hasn't been found, but they have exhumed his third wife's body and at least one investigator believes he killed her too (I found an interview with wife#2, but gave up finding anything on wife#1, the reports are just too sick). Mr. Peterson thinks wife#4 ran off with another man and just doesn't want to be found.

Now, teleport across the pond to merry old England where it's reported that John Darwin who has been gone over five years and presumed dead. The wreckage of his kayak washed on shore in March 2002 and a coroner pronounced him dead. His wife Anne, collected the life insurance money and recently moved to Panama. Now John has turned himself in claiming amnesia.

So what ties these two stories together? Is Anne Darwin's wife, Drew Peterson's next target? Or did Stacy Peterson, run off with John Darwin? No, nothing so sinister, no great conspiracy. I am just fascinated with the idea that people can run away and never be found. It turns out there are even books written about the idea: "Hide Your Assets & Disappear: A Step-By-Step Guide to Vanishing Without a Trace"

Let's see, didn't I say something a few days ago about moving to the mountains and becoming a hermit? (blog post here) If Santa wanted to bring me a book, maybe the above would be a good one...

http://www.freedomswatch.org/ - TV ads

NBC refuses to run some ads produced by Freedom's Watch. The reason they give is that the organization depicts it's web address at the end and the web site has some potentially sensitive issues.

Let's be clear. The ads that were requested are NOT politically oriented. They simply say "thank you" to the soldiers. Some also wish the soldiers a merry Christmas. At the end is a link to the freedomswathch.org website. You can view the ads here. If you disagree, please let me know and explain why. If you agree, sign the petition.

The website does show other TV ads which may cause some people to disagree (these are NOT part of the current dispute). Basically, it's an anti MoveOn.org commercial. These ads clearly voice the opinion that the War in Iraq is related to the War on Terror which is related to 9/11. Now some will disagree with that. I will not voice my opinion in this post, because I think it's not relevant.

What is relevant is that NBC, MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air ads that thank our soldiers. The ads are being shown by CNN and FoxNews.

(F0r the record, being a market-driven philosophy based individual, I believe NBC has the right to refuse any ad. But having the right, doesn't make it right)

Home again, home again...

My two weeks of ridiculous travel is over. I'm home for a while. I do have one out-of-town trip next week, but it's only one night.

It's good to be home.

Impeachment

Yesterday when I should have been working, I instead procrastinated and went off on some odd tangents. I wanted to list the presidential candidates (17 of them) and then I saw Dennis Kucinich and beacuse of his funny sounding name ended up looking at news about him. He's proposed an impeachment of VP Cheney. So what does impeachment really mean?

Most of this I knew already and most of my readers will know most of it, but I decided to put it together in one place.

Generally, impeachment is thought of as kicking someone out of office. This is wrong. Impeachment is the process where an official is brought to trial. The impeachment trial can result in conviction or aquittal, conviction means kicking someone out of office.

The impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives (what a fine bunch). Typically, the resolution is sent to the judiciary committee. It may also wind through a couple other committees. A simple majority of those present and voting is enough to proceed.

At this point, control passes to the Senate (another fine bunch). They sit in judgement over the accused. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote. Here's the interesting part. If the president is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. In other cases, the VP presides.

So (in theory), the VP could preside over his own case.

In looking at some of the history of impeachment, it looks like James Madison had a good bit to do with that part of the Constitution. Thanks to him, impeachment can only occur due to "treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors." Incompetence is not impeachable. Jefferson's manual offers some information on impeachment as well (food for another procrastination).

There have been 17 cases of impeachment at the federal level, 13 of these for judges and justices. Of the judges, 7 were removed from office and 2 resigned. One senator was impeached, but he was removed from office by Senate rules before the impeachment proceedings. In 1876, the Secretary of War (now called Secretary of defense) was impeached, he resigned and then was aquitted.

Only twice has a sitting president been impeached. Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) was impeached, but aquitted and Bill Clinton was impeached, but aquitted. Clinton was impeached on two counts: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. Two other counts were attempted, but did not make it to aquital: a second count of perjury and abuse of power. (Next time I procrastinate, I'll research those four charges)

Contrary to popular opinion, Nixon was not impeached. Impeachment proceedings were in process and would likely have resulted in impeachment, but Nixon resigned instead.

There have been 63 resolutions presented for impeachment including resolutions to impeach George Washington, John Tyler, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi has implied that impeachment hearings against Bush & Cheney are not going to happen. It appears to this researcher that she just doesn't want her tenure bogged down in the proceedings. Since any vote is likely to be split down party lines, I would agree with her. Of course, I'm not sure there's much progress being made anyway, so I can't see much damage either way.

Hermit

This time of the year is always difficult for me. I know it should be the happiest time of all. I get to see my family more than normal, everyone is in a good mood and I get to do things that please them.

I think it's tough because of the stress. I want to do things just right and they don't always work. Some family gets hurt or offended, someone else doesn't like what's going on. And they all bring their problems to me.

I get the urge to move up to the mountains and tell them that if they want to see me, come on, but leave their gripes and complaints at home.

If my comments these next few days seem a little snippy, I apologize in advance. Don't complain about it though, you'll only make it worse.

Rudy G for president

Yesterday, I read an article on Rudy Giuliani's mayor-ship. You can read the article for yourself here.

It seems that while Rudy was mayor, he had police protection at one time for himself, his wife and his mistress. My objection is not over the waste of tax payer money, my objection is over Rudy's failure to keep his promise to his wife and to have an "affair" (I dislike that term - it's too easy) while he was still married. (I also object to wasted tax payer money, but that's a much lower issue).

If a man can keep a promise to his wife, how can we expect him to keep a promise to his voters?

It seems to me that we already had a president in recent years who was a philanderer. I recall that when he ran for office, people said it didn't matter. All they were concerned about was the economy. Everything else was unimportant. As a result, we had several terrorists attacks (not on US soil, but against US property), our armed services suffered and the US was seen as soft. And as for the economy, everyone got what they wanted until the bubble burst (and continues to burst -see earlier post on Citibank).

I am reminded of the story detailed in 1 Samuel 8: The people of Israel wanted a king, and even though they were told how bad it would be for them, they demanded a king. God saw this as a rejection of his sovereignty and let them have what they asked for. In 1992, we Americans got what we asked for. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.

For the record, I can not vote for someone who has been so reckless with his promises. Marriage is sacred. If a man treats his wife this way, he won't get my vote.

Typically, I leave Bible study and politics out of my posts, but this one just couldn't be left alone.

Citibank - proof the "subprime" lending mess is bigger than you think

Unless you missed it, Citibank (actually parent company Citigroup) got a bail-out yesterday from Abu Dhabi, the investment arm of the Saudi government. The Sauds paid $7.5 billion (yes, Billion) for a 5% stake of Citi. As such, they become Citi's biggest shareholder.

Some will see this as Bush's fault, others as Clinton's. Some will see this as a problem with big oil. Others will see this as an attempt by the middle eastern bloc to control the US. Any or all of those may be valid.

I see this as a sigh that the "subprime" lending mess is bigger than you think. It has impacted one of the top two banks in the nation (depending on how you look at it, Citibank is #1 or #2, Bank of America shares the lead with them).

We can no longer blame the subprime mess on irresponsible banks or irresponsible borrowers. I don't believe there is any simple "fix" for the problem and I believe it will affect us all.

Occupancy by more than 50 people...

... is dangerous and unlawful.

That's what the sign on the wall of this courtroom said where I spent the first hour of this day (more on why I was there in another post, another day).

So, when we crowded 92 people into this room made for 50, I was just a little surprised. What a way to show respect for the law...

Basic English

I was at Dulles airport today and saw a sign that said "SAS counters opens 2:30pm".

OK, I'm thinking SAS airlines don't fly much and the counter opens at 2:30. Simple enough.

But the sign should have either read "SAS counter opens 2:30pm" or "SAS counters open 2:30pm". Either there are multiples counters that open, or a single counter that opens.

GSP Airport

I love the GSP airport. It's small and friendly, but you can go anywhere from there. Something like 12 gates total, two concourses. A long line means 10 minutes to get through (compare with hours at Atlanta). Direct flights to DC, Newark, Dallas, Cincinatti, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Ft Lauderdale, Orlando and probably more places.

Free Wi-Fi connections, decent foods, parking close to the terminal, who could ask for anything more?

But when going down the A concourse to my gate this morning, I noticed that gates A1-A4 are all empty. So why should I have to walk past them? Why not give me a shorter walk by moving the remaining airlines down?

Clemson Reigns!!!

Last night was the annual Clemson - USC game, a major event in our household. I have two degrees from Clemson, my duaghter has one (and soon a degree from USC). Her husband has a degree from USC. We have another mixed family, with one a Clemson fan, the other a USC fan. And our oldest is a Clemson fan, soon to be married to a Clemson fan.

This is a battle with heritage. My oldest brother attended both schools, but got his degree at USC. He also went back for a second degree at USC. My sister got her undergrad and Furman (after attending USC for a year), but her graduate degree at Clemson.

With all this in-fighting, some might think we wouldn't speak to each other. But last night some of us sat down and watched the game together (mostly Clemson fans). Yes we gave each other a little bit of a hard time (one complained loudly about the fashion statement Clemson players were making), but most of it was in good fun.

I cooked boiled peanuts, a first for me. They were good, but took a LONG time to cook.

And the best news, Clemson won by two points as time expired on the clock

The Family Man

Last night the movie The Family Man came on and my son (age 17) wanted to watch it. I think he had it confused with another movie, but he watched it anyway. I think I had seen it before on VHS tape.

The movie is a twist on "It's a Wonderful Life" or "Scrooge" and made me wonder exactly how many movies are made with that general theme - - give someone a glimpse of what their life might have been. In Science Fiction, we'd talk about a parallel universe or time travel. The movie gave Jack Campbell (played by Nicholas Cage) a good view of what might have been. It reminded me of Jimmy Stewart's character in a way, Jack Campbell was an enormous success who prided himself that he could buy anything he wanted. The alternate lifestyle Jack was in the center of middle class, two kids, a mini-van and 10+ years left on a mortgage. Without giving away any secrets, Jack does come to realize the difference between the two lives and is faced with some difficult decisions.

Jack's wife is played by Tea Leoni. I am amazed at how little this beautiful woman has done. I thought I had seen her in several movies, but looking at her filmography on www.imdb.com shows surprisingly few movies. I guess she just stands out so much.

The Family Man is a good movie. It's rated PG-13, the TV version was of course much tamer. The website www.kids-in-mind.com gives the movie a profanity score of 5 out of 10, a sex/nudity rating of 4 and a violence/gore rating of 3. Overall, I'm surprised it was rated PG-13 instead of PG.

Overall, the movie is very good and rates high with me. It's not deep or anything, just a good flick.

P.S. For those who've never used www.kids-in-mind.com, I highly recommend the website. They give a very accurate representation of most movies and give a consistent score. While I feel like they are somewhat strict (this coming from a conservative), they explain their ratings and give details of why they are valid. You, the reader, can decide to agree or disagree. For example, they will explain the number of times you see cleavage (or more) and decide if it's important. Much more details that MPAA ratings.

I Walk the Line

We received the DVD I Walk the Line two years ago for Christmas. Someone in the family borrowed it and it went from one set of children to another for a while. We finally got it back a couple of months ago and finally sat down to watch it last night.

I have to confess, I wasn't impressed. Oh, the music was great. The fact that Joaquin Phoenix and Resse Witherspoon did their own music was quite impressive. The views of other singers of that era was also impressive. Reading the credits afterwards and realizing that Waylon Jenning's son played Waylon was cool.

But I was unimpressed with the story line. I'm sure it's true (most of the notes I've read about it indicate it was true, but possibly unfair to his first wife), but it was depressing to me. It turns out that the man who wrote the song "I Walk the Line" simply didn't.

While Johnny's first wife was at home raising his four daughters (including singer Roseanne Cash), Johnny was out on the road not walking the line. Instead he met and fell in love with his second wife, June Carter. The movie also showed him somewhat involved with two other women.

To me the central part of the movie will forever be Johnny's "Cheatin Heart" (Hank Williams song). Why is it that a man should leave the wife of his youth to seek out a new one? Why is it that a man can't stick with the woman who stuck by him?

I also didn't like the issue with Johnny's father. Throughout the movie Johnny sought his father's approval. He never got it (the scene at the end implies that may have changed). Instead, his father always saw the cloud instead of the silver lining. Whenever Johnny did something good, someone else did something better.

But why should an adult Johnny blame his father for his problems? Why not accept the blame himself? At what point to we become our own person, responsible for our own lives, and not our father's children? No, the movie never blamed the father, but I hear a lot of viewers simultaneously saying "See, my dad was the same way."

Where's the movie about a guy that stayed with his wife, through good times and bad? A movie about a man who loved his mother and father in spite of their failures? A movie about a man who realizes that he is of his own making?

I have to admit, I don't see where the movie was unfair to his first wife. Sure she was a little bit whiney in the beginning. When they couldn't pay bills and were ready to be evicted, Johnny was squandering money on music magazines (including mags with cover pictures of future wife June Carter), Vivian wanted to go see her daddy. Ok, she should have "stood by her man" (Tammy Wynette) and suppoorted him, but somehow a mother of 1.5 children has a right to whine.

Vivian stood by her children and even was right to tell the young divorcee to "stay away from my girls." I hope to read her side of the story in the book "I Walked the Line: My Life With Johnny."

Happy Thanksgiving

I want to wish all my gentle readers a very Happy Thanksgiving. In random order:

Today, I am thankful for my regular readers including Becky, Neil, David and John (that I know of), there are other readers who drop by sometime.

Today I am thankful for family, many of whom will be here today: Kayte and (soon to be family) Kevin, Ashley and Adam, Katie, Anthony and Adam and of course Grandma Rose.

Today I am thankful for friends, some of whom will be here today: Bob & Mary, Lisa, Anna, Barbara, Melody and Blake.

Of course, I can't leave out that today I am thankful for my lovely wife Nena. She is the one who plans this day, cooks (especially since our turkey fryer turned up missing), cares for all that are here. She puts up with me (which is a tall order) and cares for me.

Today I am thankful that I live in a country where I can choose my destiny. I am free to practice religion as I want, I am free to work as hard as I want and (sometimes) be rewarded accordingly. A country that stands behind me if wrongly accused and a country that defends me.

Today I am thankful for those who are willing to give up the priveleges I have in order to defend those priveleges.

Today I am thankful for God, for His soveriegnty. (If He left things up to me, I know I'd mess them up). I am thankful for His care and loving, for Him sending His son to make up for my inadequacies, for my failure, my sin.

Happy Thanksgiving to all

Customer service - Nationwide vs State Farm

Recently, I've had a chance to do business with two different auto insurance companies and I've seen a stark contrast in their approach. I'm not saying these incidents are typical of either company, one incident per company doesn't make a trend. But just listen to (read) my experience and see what you think.

In April (on my birthday no less), my son was involved in a small accident. No one was hurt, which was a blessing. He stopped for some turning traffic in front of him and his friend, traveling behind him, didn't stop quite quick enough. A jeep rear-ends a small Mitsubishi, not a good thing. It was obvious to me that it was a total loss. He drove it home to avoid tow charges and it sat in my driveway avoiding storage charges. State Farm (the other boy's insurance) was called on Monday morning and said an adjuster would call me within four days. That means they will call, not that they will do anything. Since my son was under age, no rental car was available to him. Another savings for State Farm.

(I blogged on some of this back on May 07, see it all here).

The experience overall was horrible, State Farm did a lousy job managing my claim and when I filed a complaint with their office, they just said that these things happen.

Fast forward to this month, my mother-in-law has a wreck. At 84, any wreck is major. She was very fortunate, she broke a couple ribs (no one told us just how many) and had some internal bleeding, but after only four nights in the hospital she's home recuperating. The accident was her fault, she ran a redlight (early morning sun seems to have hidden the light). It was easy to see the car was totaled, I contacted insurance to help her. Nationwide asked me about the damage and agreed it was probably totaled (it doesn't take much any more).

Within two business days, I got a call from the adjuster. He explained he had the case and would call me the next day. He called the next day and had an offer for settlement. His offer made good sense and he even emailed me a 15 page document explaining the offer and justifying it. He found cars in the area that matched her car and showed me where they were. He also included on the first offer the "extras" that he was allowed (tax, tag & title fees) - I don't think State Farm did that until I pointed them out.

A couple days later I got another call from Nationwide asking my mother-in-law's condition and telling me that she had coverage for medical payments. This coverage is issued direct to her to cover incidental expenses. They are mailing a check along with some papers (technically, they don't have to mail the check until the papers are signed).

Nationwide has gone about their duty quickly and efficiently. State Farm seemed intent on dragging their feet each step of the way. Nationwide's first offer was clear, concise and fair. State Farm's first offer was low, with no explanation. When I objected, they raised the offer making me feel somewhat justified. I never felt either offer was fair,

Now given the customer service listed above, who would you do business with? I've paid out more in insurance than I ever will recover (hopefully). I would like to lower my premium, but customer service is more important than getting the cheapest rate, especially if the company doesn't show they will hold their end of the bargain. For now, I'm staying with Nationwide.

Thank you to all veterans

It's late in the day, but still not too late to say thank-you to all veterans everywhere.

I am proud of the fact that there are several veterans in my family: 1) Step-son is the most recent veteran, getting out of the army about 2 years ago, 2) Two air-force veteran brothers, one got out about 8 years ago, the other 20 years ago, 3) sister-in-law is air-force veteran, got out about 20 years ago, 4) father was a WWII veteran, he joined in spring/summer 1945 (after victory in Europe I believe, but well before the end in Japan).

I also have a future step-son-in-law (if that's a word) who is active in the army guard and will be full time army when he graduates seminary.

Thank you to each of these, and to others everywhere. Thank you for service to you country. I know you gave up a lot for this service. Thank you for the willingness to step up and do your part. I hope I can in some way, repay you for what you have done.

Fall is here

I saw a visual representation yesterday of why Autumn is called "Fall". Beside our deck in the back yard are two tall trees we affectionately call our "Jack" trees. We planted these things when they were about 3 feet high. The first year, they shot up over 10 feet. Second year, same thing. Last year, I cut the tops off to slow the growth and they only grew around 5 feet or so. So, in my mind, it was like Jack and the Beanstalk.

Yesterday, I was standing in the sunroom looking out (while the dog was taking care of her morning business) and saw these trees shedding their leaves one by one. You could count the leaves as they fell, about one per second. The leaves on this tree are huge, almost a foot across. When the leaves all fall, it will look like a stick tree.

The kids had a Teddy Ruxpin that used to sing "Autumn is just an in between time, in between the summer and the winter". But it's a pretty time of year....

I've decided to move

Scientists report that a newfound planet could support life. I've decided that what with all of the global warming, I'm going to move to this new planet. But there's a little about the "science" of all of this that bothers me.

First, when I was in school, I learned that science was based on what we OBSERVED. So much of what we call science today is based on things that "scientists" can't see.

But enough of that, this planet, only 41 light years away is in the "'Goldilocks zone' - a place that's not too hot, not too cold, but just right." This planet is the fifth planet around this star. The planets are between the size of Jupiter and Saturn and are gas giants which "isn't a likely suspect in search for life."

Wait a minute, didn't the headline say it could support life? But wait, the story goes further, it says that "any rocky moons around (the planet) would be" (likely to support life). So we're talking about the moons around the planet being habital.

This should excite me. After all, if we can move to another planet, we don't have to worry about global warming. But it seems that science should count on what is truly observable and that until we can observe it, it seems like it should be reported as hypothesis.

Hotels

I spent another night at a hotel last night. Last week, in Virginia, this week in NC. This time, the hotel was a lot like the hotel I worked at as a teenager. Small, inexpensive, right on the highway. But a lot was different too.

When I go to a hotel today, I expect coffee in the room along with an iron and ironing board. As a teenager, we had an iron and ironing board at the office, part of my job was to deliver it to anyone that needed it. Coffee was at the restaurant next door.

Breakfast this morning, was eggs (almost a cheese omelet), ham and a danish. Orange juice too. I could have had bisquits or waffles, but I'm watching my carbs. This vs. the restaurant next door.

The small, inexpensive hotel has changed..

Quote of the day

We hang the petty thieves and appoint (or elect) the great ones to public office.

Aesop - Greek slave & fable author (620 BC - 560 BC)

(That guy really knew what he was talking about, huh?

Taken from the quotations page.

WKRP Cincinatti

On my way back home, first leg was from Richmond to Cincinatti. A lady on the plane suggested we should all sing a song when we landed. I agreed and suggested the only song I knew about Cincinatti, the WKRP theme song. Of course no one knew all of the words, so we opted out. (I actually probably know most, but people say I sound like a cat that's been stepped on).

Cincinatti airport is fine if you don't have to go between C and A/B concourses. Then you have to take a bus. Seems like the carbon credit police should get after them for all of the buses, frequently idling.

I'll be home in a couple hours, that's all that matters

Virginia is for Lovers

I'm posting remotely today, from Fredericksburg, Va. I come to this town about 2-3 times a year to visit a customer here. I can choose to fly into Washington DC and drive down or fly into Richmond and fly up. Richmond is a nicer airport and an easier drive.

I always forget the Richmond is NOT a non-smoking town. It's hard to get a non-smoking rental car. After three attempts, I got a nice little Prius. After a couple of false starts (pun intended) and some help from a gentelman at the Hertz return "desk", I was able to get the car started and I took off. The Prius is actually a nice car, but I don't like the dashboard (too far away) and I don't like the view out the rear mirror (cut in 1/2 by a metal part of the car).

Last night for dinner, I met my boss, the customer and his "girl-friend" at The Log Cabin in Fredericksburg. We drove through part of the town (not the Old Town) and I was reminded how pretty this area actually is. On past visits, I've noticed how the rivers and rolling hills remind me of the foothills of SC. Dinner at this small non-chain seafood restaurant was excellent. We stayed for about three hours, enjoying gentle conversation. Yes, some work was discussed, but as my manager put it, we just wanted to show our appreciation to the customer.

I got some good news before the meal, I had thought I would be losing this customer next year due to some re-organizations in my department. After working with them for eight or nine years, I have developed a relationship of mutual trust. Fortunately, I'll still be able to work with them, possibly even at a deeper level.

I'm hoping that my wife and I can come up next spring for a visit. We would drive up and then go on up to see DC. But first, we'd spend a day or so visiting this area, having dinner with another couple with very similar backgrounds... it should be a nice visit.

Halloween Tie

I have a presentation today and I decided I should wear a Halloween tie. Something with pumpkins or even a musical tie with ghosts that said "Boo" when you pushed a button. I looked in three stores by myself, then went to the mall with my wife and looked in a half dozen or more.

We saw Halloween clothes for women and children, but nothing for men. I guess men just aren't meant to be festive.

Happy Halloween from an unfestive presenter.

This note is legal tender for all debts public and private

Check your wallet, that's what it says on all bills printed in the US. The idea is that it's backed by the full authority of the US Government (which sometimes is scary) and that you can use it anywhere you go to pay bills. No need to carry gold or silver or scales to weigh gold or silver. As Martha Stewart would say, "it's a good thing!"

Why then is Apple saying "your money's no good here"? And by that, they mean it's no good, not that you can have it without giving money. Seems like Apple is trying to track expenses and say who can buy their product and how many. Rationing. Discrimination. I can think of a lot of words. Bottom line, why can't I use cash?

I wasn't planning on buying an iPhone. I don't have/need an iPod (I do have a Palm Pilot that will play MP3's) and I already have a cell phone. My son is crazy about the iPhone, but they are WAY out of his price league. It just bothers me that you can't use cash.

When I was young, someone once told me that companies HAD to accept cash. It was the law. I know some companies today don't, but I also know I've heard stories about people demanding it. And I've heard the courts backed it up. I looked and couldn't find anything one way or the other. But, somehow, even if it isn't illegal, it's just wrong.

The article is here.

Sola Scriptura

This morning I was looking for some reference information and ran across an interesting article that took me way off track. It included the information below. This wasn't a key part of the article and I disagreed with the article's premises, but I completely agreed with these statements.

The article contained a definition of "sola Scriptura", which is Latin for "only the Bible". (I like quoting Latin, it makes me feel important". It said:

"Some Christians chafe at the discussion because there is no Bible verse (on subject of your choice). This charge is especially relevant to a Protestant such as this author (and this author), who believes in the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.

"But sola Scriptura does not mean that Scripture is the only authority to which one should listen, but that Scripture is the final and non-negotiable authority, the norm that norms all other norms. I look to (my favorite mapping tool), not to Leviticus, to find my way from Louisville to Chicago, but if (my favorite mapping tool)—or the Third Vatican Council or the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention—tells me there was never a City of Jericho, I submit to the authority of Scripture over theirs.

"Moreover, sola Scriptura has never meant merely a concordance approach to the Bible (Where’s a verse on sex reassignment surgery? Not one? Then it’s fine? Well, no). There is a comprehensive storyline to Scripture, against which we must judge our actions, especially the actions of our churches as we testify to the reality of the gospel."

Ok, it's not ground breaking theology, but it expains a lot of how I feel. And since I couldn't find the information I was looking for, this serves two purposes: 1) it gives me something to put here and 2) it will help remind me of a basic tenant of my belief.

If anyone's interested, the full article on a totally separate subject is here. I'm very interested in any comments on this statement...

When is a library not a library?

When you can't check anything out! See the article here.

Seems the Bill Clinton Presidential Library has a limited selection of information available to the viewing public. In particular, a collection of emails and papers about Hillary is not available and won't be until long after the 2008 election. Is she trying to hide something? How long did it take for her to find Whitewater papers? She must've used that as a trial ground to work this angle.

The story I heard on the radio said that less than 1/2 of 1% of all of the material from the Clinton days is available. This after Hillary promised us the library would be open.

Several republicans are running on the platform that they are the one who can beat Hillary. I've never liked someone who runs on a platform like this. But she is one person who almost makes me change my mind...

P.S. There's also a fishy report I heard about Hillary receiving donations from the China connection. I haven't researched it yet, but will post an entry when I do.

30,000 pounds of bananas

Fans of Harry Chapin (or residents of Scranton, Pa) may recognize the subject line as a song. If you don't recall, the lines, you can see the lyrics here.

Alas, the residents of the eastern half of Simpsonville, will be like the residents of Scranton in the second ending of the song (the first ending and the second were both rejected if you listen to the live performance).

The ending was:
A woman walks into her room where her child lies sleeping
and when she sees his eyes are closed, she sits there, silently weeping
and though she lives in Scranton, Pennsylvania
She never ever eats ... Bananas
Not one of thirty thousand pounds .... of bananas

Tonight was my son's last night on the job stacking bananas. Now he's going to take a break from the world of capitalism. Until the grocery store finds another banana stacker, the residents will go without. Stock up Simpsonville!

P.S. The song was based on actual history. Visit the link above for the details

What a weekend!

The weekend was busy!! As normal for our house, we had an invader for the weekend, our 18 month old grandson. He has more energy than both of us combined. The big event was a surprise birthday party for my 80 year old mother (Happy Birthday Mom!).

I was nominated to put together a slide show with old pictures, so I finished pulling them all together Friday night. Of course first, we had dinner with some of the folks who had come into town for the surprise.

Saturday involved finishing up last minute details and getting ready for the party. A little setup, a little moving furniture, then everyone started arriving. Three hours of meet & greet, take tear down it all and then to dinner again (we're a family that likes to eat).

Saturday night we crashed as soon as the 18 month old invader would let us. Sunday morning, I had the privelege of hearing my favorite singer worship her (& my) Lord by singing at my mom's church (another birthday present for Mom). And of course after church, what else, but go eat again.

Yes, a busy weekend, and no time to think about things I normally blog about. But it was a good weekend.

Evolution and the Wisdom of the Crowds

Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution?or is it the other way around?

OK, I'm not abandoning my fundamentalist Christianity. But this was a well written article explaining a non-religious reason that some people reject evolution. Go see the full article here.

The article is a not an easy read, but if you read it like a school paper, it's not too hard. Basically, it suggests that the way to convert those of us who are anti-evolution is to address the conceptual difficulty in accepting evolution. Rather than go into details on how to do this, the article defends the process by showing three areas that are "evolution-like" that have the dubious honor of everyone believing would fail, but actually work.

The article uses as a reference a book called "Wisdom of the crowds", a book I read in my MBA. I found the book interesting and believable, but when I tried one experiment from the book, it failed miserably (if interested, I'll blog about that another time). The author suggested many references to back up his work, I have to assume my failure was an anomoly.

The article looks at Wikipedia and the fact that it is exceptionally high quality (higher than Encyclopdia Brittannica) even though it can be edited by people with little or no education. Then it goes on to look at predictive markets and explain how they work and recommendation systems (like Netflix - one of my favorite systems).

The article concludes that pro-eveolutionists should use different teaching methods to teach evolution and avoid the conceptual difficulties.

So what's my point here? Well, first it is NOT to suggest I believe in evolution. Second, it is NOT to alert my anti-evolution friends of some new method of disputing the Truth. Instead, my point is to share a well written article about the Wisdom of the Crowds and how it can help in some practical way. Hope you enjoy it.

Birth control for 11 year olds

In Portland Maine, a middle school has begun dispensing birth control pills and patches to students. Yep, it's true, look here for the article.

Seems the school board voted 7-2 in favor of the action (at least 2 thought the plan was ridiculous). Of course this shouldn't surprise anyone, condoms have been available at the same school since 2000. There is a requirement that parents allow treatment at the school health center, but who wouldn't sign that (I guess "treatment" includes condoms and birth control).

I guess the next step is to give them the phone number for Planned Parenthood and the nearest abortion clinic. Thinking about that, I wonder who sponsors the pills and patches? Even adults have trouble knowing how to take the pill, don't they think these children will make mistakes while thinking they are "safe"? As for the patch, students will wear it some times, then remove it at others and the patch won't be effective.

Why must schools teach students that pre-marital sex is ok? Why can't they stick to teaching academics and let parents teach morals?

Texas Student Booted - Follow-up

Several days ago, I posted an entry titled Texas Student Booted from School for Wearing John Edwards T-Shirt. In the post, I said “the question becomes, does the school district have the right (or responsibility) to restrict the clothes worn in order to keep the peace in school?” I sided with the schools.

I generated a couple of responses and promised to do more research. Special thanks to David and Tom who made me think (something that hasn’t happened outside of work in a while). This post will be long, I apologize but ask you to read it in full. Dissenting comments are welcome and expected.

While I have: 1) spent a lot of time in research and thought, 2) taken one (business) law course and 3) stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once or twice, any attempt to use this post for legal advice should be considered foolish. Or, if you use any arguments here in a bar and get into a fight, please don’t sue me.

Here’s a rough outline of my post, First, I will cover stare decis. It’s painfully long, but important. My second point will look quickly at some points on this specific case, along with points from cases that are similar. Finally, I will wrap up with my opinion and some supporting information.

Stare Decis
It’s important to understand a little bit about American law. Much to the disdain of my more conservative friends, criminal law in the US is based not only on the constitution and legislative laws, but also based on previous decisions. A policy of “stare decis” (I love speaking Latin) applies in the courts. Literally, this is translated “to stand by things decided.” It means that the courts recognize that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents.

In cases involving the Constitution, the Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases (according to Wikipedia – not always the best source, but usually good).

In his confirmation hearing, Judge Clarence Thomas said “Stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. (This was in a response to Sen. Strom Thurmond, my SC senator for roughly 100 years).

But Thomas hasn’t always followed precedence. Judge Scalia has said "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right." Thomas would rather go against a previous ruling than continue a mistake. The judicial oath requires loyalty to the Constitution, rather than to precedence. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution (again, thanks to Wikipedia).

Specific cases
I found a variety of cases regarding schools and enforcement of dress code. Nearly all focused on the student’s freedom of speech vs the school’s requirements for peace. Tom mentioned a benchmark case (Tinker vs Des Moines School District) where students wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The courts said that the school could not limit the students’ rights to free speech unless that speech constituted a “material disruption.”

Many cases go back to this 1969 decision. When looking at this specific case (Texas/Edwards t-shirt) it should be noted that the school district dress code prohibits all writing or slogans on student clothing except for “school spirit” slogans and “university logos.” The legal question would be: Does this school’s dress code meet the Tinker criteria – does the t-shirt create a “material disruption?”

The courts have decided that age of the student makes a difference. In Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., the courts ruled that elementary school students' rights were not violated when students were disciplined for wearing expressive T-shirt reading: "Unfair Grades" and "Racism". The court concluded that the students failed to demonstrate the right to wear expressive T-shirts while in school. The court indicated that age can be a relevant factor in assessing the extent of a student's free speech rights.

In my words, elementary age students have no freedom of speech. (oops opinion slipping in too quickly)

Not only can age be a factor, but community standards can also influence school policy. In Hines v. Caston School Corp. the court noted that The court noted that evidence was presented that the enforcement of a strict dress code was a factor in improving students' attitudes toward school, and that this change in attitude had led to improvements in school attendance, drop-out rates, and academic performance.

The court stated that a community's schools be permitted to reflect its values. The court also said that "it is a valid educational function to instill discipline and create a positive educational environment by means of a reasonable, consistently applied dress code."

In my words, the courts saw value in dress code.

The same held true in a 1987 Illinois case prohibiting male students from wearing earrings as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs in the school. In this case, the school provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and resulting violence in its schools. The court upheld the policy, concluding that the Board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment. (Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228)

But the courts have not always supported a dress code. In California (where else?) in 1993 students filed and won a lawsuit against a dress code that prohibited clothing identifying any professional sports team or college. The court ruled that the policy violated the student’s First Amendment free speech rights. (Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District)

And in a 1992 case in Oklahoma case, the courts held that the dress code was unconstitutionally applied to students when the district banned T-shirts with advertisements for alcoholic beverages. The school district failed to meet its burden of proof that the T-shirt message in question would be perceived as an advertisement for alcoholic beverages or that it would result in substantial disruption to the school. (McIntire v. Bethel Sch.)

Probably the most recent case was the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (2007). Seems a young man created a sign with the aforementioned slogan and held it at a school-sanctioned event (students were let out of class and accompanied by their teachers). He was suspended for 10 days for promoting illegal drug use. The courts ruled his rights were not violated and his banner was “sophomoric”.

Opinion
So, staring in the face of stare decis (sorry couldn't resist), precedence going both ways, how should this case be settled? The courts have ruled both ways depending on whether or not they see a need for the policy. If it disrupts school, leads to gang violence or drugs is against community standards or if the children are young, the courts have upheld dress codes.

On the other hand, they have often torn down dress codes in the spirit of free speech. There’s no telling which way the court will rule here IF (big if) the people involved appeal. I wouldn't bet one way or the other.

My opinion remains the same. I side with the schools. If they have a policy against political comments on t-shirts, they should enforce it. Students who violate the policy should be disciplined.

If an individual is concerned about free speech, they should go to the school board meeting and voice their concern (no evidence that this was done in this case). If the school board fails to respond, a lawsuit could be filed WITHOUT disrupting school. You may argue that this shouldn’t disrupt schools, but it will. The teacher involved and the principal will have to decide whether to enforce the rules as handed to them, or violate them (and risk their jobs). Students will begin to lose respect for the system as a whole.

It’s possible to effect change within the system.

Thanks for reading this entire note. Special thanks again to Tom and David for making me think.

Eviscerate

This word has been on my mind a lot lately. I think I read it in the book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge (a good book, by the way). The word literally means to remove the entrails. Picture a hunter who has caught his prey, he removes the entrials to prevent them from infecting the good meat. You gut a fish before you catch it. Same thing.

But my mind hasn't been on hunting. Instead it's been on a friend of mine who has been eviscerated. Those who know some scorned or vengeful women may have an image of how an man can be eviscerated. In this case, that image doesn't fit exactly, but leave that image in your mind.

The friend has been told by many of those around him that he's not a man. He grew up in an abusive home (I'm assuming "mild" physical abuse - if there is such a thing) with an alcoholic parent. His parents divorced and the alcoholic hasn't remarried. The other spouse remarried and ignored my friend. (I think the remarriage and ignorance happend after my friend became an adult - not while he was still a child).

Now, his marriage is on the rocks. He wants to be a good husband, he wants to be a good father. They've been to counseling, but it didn't help. Certainly some (most?) of the blame for the failure of their relationship falls on his shoulders. He admits this as fact. That doesn't make it any easier to resolve things.

When I look into my very cloudy crystal ball, I see them headed for more problems. I wish I knew an easy way to un-viscerate him and convince her that they can recover. There may already be too much water under the bridge.

The Strong One

Last night my wife and I went to a Clint Black concert. It was in a city theatre (rather than an auditorium) so the ambiance was very nice. His tour is appropriately called "Up Close and Personal". Even though we were some 15 or so rows back, we had excellent seats as did everyone in the theater.

Along with a lot of favorites, he sang his new song "The Strong One" - a story about the strong ones in our lives: our mothers. It's a story about a single mom and it includes the line "you tell me who the strong one is." Excellent song.

Clint also did a Willie Nelson song and he actually did a better Willie than Willie does. His story about the time he met Willy before a CMA show was hilarious.

The opening act was Laura Bryna. She was good and I'll probably buy her upcoming CD just to hear more of her. She still has a ways to go. I read her resume on the program and it was impressive. Her personal comments also gave me a lot to believe in.

Overall, the night was a nice change from everyday doldrums. If you get a chance to see the tour, you should go.

Dedication to God, love of family and Country

This article tells a story that is sad. Seems a young eagle scout (age 17) wanted to honor his grandfather with a flag flown over the capital. So he filled out the necessary paperwork, paid the necessary fees and included a personal dedication that said it was for "his dedication to God, love of family and County." [sic]

But the official rules prevent religious expressions, so the word "God" was removed.

I thought the first amendment said that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Wasn't this eagle scout exercising his freedom of religion? Isn't Congress (who set up these rules) prohibiting him from that exercise?

(Note: Some headlines and radio reports said that Nancy Pelosi defended this policy. I couldn't find any facts to back that up. If you find any comments by Pelosi pro/con please let me know)

Failure to plan on your part....

... does not constitute an emergency on my part.

My day today has been shot. I planned to go to Columbia, instead I'm headed north of Charlotte. I planned to work on several things this morning, instead I got an urgent call at 9:30. IF we order something, how long would it take to arrive? Oh, we've been sitting on it for weeks. We've known all the deadlines for months. We should have ordered it days ago. But we might get around to it and when we do, we want it RIGHT NOW. Just in time. No matter that the order has to be processed in Brazil, no matter that it has to be built to order in Mexico, no matter that it has to come through customs with more scrutiny than a pick-up load of illegals.

And that's just one of the fires I'm fighting while I spend 6 hours of my 10 hour day driving.

Hopefully, I'll have my follow-up and the school with John Edwards t-shirt problems tomorrow...
(Can you tell I'm frustrated?)

Obama speaks at church - Updated

Last Thursday, I posted a blog showing that Sen. Obama intended to violate the constitutional [sic] requirement for a separation of church and state. Since I'm sure most of my readers don't read the local newspaper or listen to local newsradio, I thought I'd update here.

The article can be found here. Apparently, Sen Obama stuch to his faith-based message and didn't drift into politics. He reported that his late-blooming faith is "what keeps (his) eyes set on the greatest of heights."

A listener to the local Christian talk radio program phoned in with his view. He reported that Obama seemed shocked by what he saw at the racially diverse congregation and probably wondered what role the government might have (none) since this was already diverse. He said Obama was stunned and for 20 minutes didn't even realize the congregation was standing. This listener said he spoke to Obama after the service and told him that "God can not bless you until you drop your pro-abortion stance".

This last comment comes off sounding very negative. When the speaker reported it on the radio, it didn't come off that way. Rather it sounded like he was impressed with Obama and wanted to share his opinion. Reportedly Obama looked down and went to the next person. Again, this wasn't reported as negative, just factual. I did not get the impression that the speaker took it negative. If you infer that either side of this was negative, I did a poor job reporting.

My point here is that Obama did what many conservatives do, and that is to speak in front of the church. Let's not forget this when Bush speaks in a church and is accused of violating this constitutional edict.

Update -
Where is the equal time? Will Fred Thompson or Sen. McCain be allowed to speak? Also, if there is such a push to shut out Rush Limbaugh, why not shut out this church?

I hate MySpace

I found a good blog, someone who lives in my area and shares some common interest (except college choices). But I can't comment because I don't have a myspace account. I guess I have to go create one, but do you KNOW how many userids/passwords I have? 51! (I just counted)

I have them recorded somewhere (it's a secret where). That's not good for security, but making them all the same isn't either. There has to be a better way!

Separation of Church and State

Another case of a presidential candidate trying to use religion to get votes. See the details here.

Seems that Sen. Barack Obama is going to speak at Redemption Outreach Center, a non-denominational church, in Greenville this Sunday. In the past, similar actions have caused an outcry for "a wall of separation" between the Church and the State.

My reaction may surprise people on both sides. First, I think each candidate is guaranteed the right to speak about his/her faith (or not to speak as they desire). I personally hope each one explains his/her faith position and how it will impact their decisions should they win the White House. Maybe the answer is it won't affect them, that's ok too. At least I'll know where they say they stand.

I would like to go hear the Senator speak. I heard his speech at the Democratic National Convention and was impressed. I realized then that this was a Senator to watch. While I disagree with most of his positions, I think he is an excellent speaker and he brings a lot of good thinking to the floor.

It's unlikely that I will be able to hear him, I have commitments at my own church this weekend. It's not clear what time he will be speaking, so it's still possible.

Texas Student Booted From School for Wearing John Edwards T-Shirt

Apparently, it's against the rules in a particular Texas school district to wear t-shirts with political slogans. Read the whole story here.

The question becomes, does the school district have the right (or responsibility) to restrict the clothes worn in order to keep the peace in school? Apparently, the fact that it was an Edwards shirt really didn't matter, the student would have had the same punishment for wearing a Clinton, Obama, Rudy or Thompson shirt.

The parents are talking about a law-suit (of course), claiming freedom of speech. I side with the school district here. If the policy was well documented (I'm assuming here), then they should be allowed to enforce the policy. The parents could sue, but shouldn't allow their son to wear the shirt until the policy is changed.

Somehow parents need to understand that the schools are at a disadvantage. They get complaints when they don't set standards, and then complaints when they do. Parents should support the schools, then work through normal channels to effect changes if needed. Using your kid (or allowing your kid) to effect the changes is just plain wrong. Kids need to respect authority, even if the authority is wrong. There's a better way to correct the wrongs.

Write in Jenna Bush for president

According to an MSNBC report, Jenna Bush won't be seeking the presidency. Uhh.. someone should check their constitution (with apologies to Al Haig). You have to be 35 to be president. Young Jenna is only 25 according to the same report. She'll have to wait out the next 3 elections.


MSNBC also says her fiancee doesn't aspire to the presidency. He's not much older, this site says he's 29. He'll have to wait out this election and the next.

I think this qualifies as stupid journalism (with apologies to my son-in-law)

Oh, as for changing their mind? Remember that in 1992, Hillary Clinton said she wasn't a "stand by your man" woman. Somewhere along the way, I guess she changed. Jenna and her husband-to-be are entitled to change their minds too

Savannah

This past weekend, my wife & I took a short trip to Savannah, a first for both of us. This was in celebration of our sixth anniversary.

Let me first say that I am married to the most wonderful woman in the world. How she puts up with me continues to be a mystery and the fact that she deigns to my level is still beyond my comprehension. But she doesn't consider it that at all and that's even more mysterious.

Savannah is a nice town to visit. At 60 feet above sea level (lower in places), I'm not sure I'd want to live there. There's lots of history, back to the revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war and the Civil War. We walked through a Colonial cemetery and read some of the tombstones. The first I saw was a woman who died after the birth of her 15th child. I think it was self-defense.

We strolled along the river, saw street performers and just enjoyed the first evening. On Saturday we went to a light house. It was nice, but looked like all the other light houses I've seen. I'm sure I'll see more in the years to come.

After the lighthouse and the lighthouse museum, we went downtown for another stroll. (I find that I stroll more now that I'm older). Saturday night we took in a riverboat cruise. It was nice and relaxing, but we couldn't see a lot. Sunday morning we took a carriage ride. Lots of historical information.

Savannah is smaller than I imagined. It would be hard to make a full week out of it, but it's a nice weekend get-away.