Global Warming - It "Could" Happen

I was struck recently by the release of a scientific report that said that one of the effects of Global Warming "could" be a decrease in the number of hurricanes that hit the US. The reason that this information had such a profound effect on me was not that it might mean getting some good out of the doom and gloom preaching on global warming. It was instead curiosity, since Al Gore had told us in "An Inconvenient Truth" that global warming would increase the number and severity of hurricanes. It made me wonder how both could be true. After pondering this poser for some time, I realized that both statements only talked about what "could" happen and not the realities of what will happen in the future.
WOW!
In a moment of sanity and clarity (which seem to come about as often as the recent February 29th), I realized that if this were the case, then anyone can comment on the possibilities and anything is possible. With that in mind, I take up my trusty keyboard, place tongue firmly in cheek, and attempt to do so for the enlightenment and amusement of those who read this.
- If Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS would take off all of the talking head segments on their shows (especially during election years) that try to interpret the news instead of just reporting it, the resultant reduction of carbon dioxide "could" begin to reverse the effects of global warming and save the planet. (As a side benefit, there would also be a savings to landfills passed on through a reduced use of duct tape to keep our heads from exploding.)

- If the Federal government mandated the use of anti-gas tablets for all US residents, the resultant decrease in methane emissions "could" seriously reduce our carbon footprint.
(You will please note that I said residents and not citizens. Without attempting to appear racist or get into side issue, some ethnic foods produce more gas than others. White Castles, unfortunately for me, would simply have to be banned as a bio-health hazard.)

- If Congress would limit the length of floor speeches to 90 seconds (which is after all considered long enough for the answer to a question in a political debate), global warming in the US "could" be reduced significantly from a simple lowering in hot air production.
- If Al Gore and Michael Moore would make only one copy of the movies that they produce and just show them over and over again, we "could" significantly reduce the oil used in film, video tape, and plastic DVD disc production. (Better still, they could either recycle their movies before showing them, or simply not make them in the first place.)

- If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie would adopt children in this country instead of flying half-way across the world to find their latest offspring, the resulting reduction in greenhouse gases "could" reduce the number and severity of typhoons in the Far East.

- If grocery stores would go back to the use of paper bags instead of the plastic, it "could" have a significant impact on the environment. Not only is paper a more renewable material than plastic, since it uses trees and not oil; but the process might encourage the planting of trees, one of the planets natural filters. Such new timber stands in the US "could" make the US self-sustaining in grocery bag production and might also help the planet recover from the the increases in carbon dioxide production and the decimation of the Amazon rain forest.

- If everyone would just drink tap beer, the world "could" significantly reduce the energy costs and environmental damage done by the manufacture and use of bottles and cans that would be otherwise used. (Personally, I suggest Guinness; but I'm just saying...)

- If everyone on the planet would just become Amish and go back to horse-drawn carriages, then the effect of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases "could" be reversed (in about a thousand years). Besides, I really like the hats.

Fractured Fairy Tales - The Wizard of Oz

I would like to revisit the classic tale in the title of this posting, with a more modern twist, based on recent history. So with apologies to L. Frank Baum for butchering what was and is a wonderful series of 14 books (there's a lot more to this than the story told in the 1939 Victor Fleming film), here is my version of "The Wizard of Oz".

Dorothy finds herself terrified and in trouble. It seems as though she was innocently sitting in her home one day in Kansas, doing nothing more than minding her own business, when disaster struck. Now before I go on, I should tell you that the home Dorothy was in was a house purchased some time back. She got a really good price on this particular piece of property because it was in "Tornado Alley", a place where tornadoes often came. Now she couldn't really afford the house at the time, owning a home in tornado alley was a bit of a risk, and quite frankly it wasn't in very good shape; but it was such a great deal that she couldn't pass it up. Besides, Dorothy had always wanted a piece of the American dream that meant owning a home. You might even say that she felt that she had a "right" to it. So she went ahead and took the plunge regardless of the long term personal consequences. One day a tornado came along (which was no real surprise in Tornado Alley, of course) and lifted Dorothy's house right off of Kansas and sent it flying through the air. In no more than what seemed an instant, Dorothy was whisked away to a far away place known as Oz.

Now Oz was a great place to live. The climate was moderate, the land productive, and the people there were of reasonable temperament and good moral fiber (well, at least as good as they are anywhere). They didn't take too kindly to having a house dropped in the middle of their fair city however. (Then again, who does?) No, there are laws even in Oz, and one of them was that people couldn't just drop houses anywhere that they wanted. Regretfully, Dorothy was told that she was just going to have to move her house. 


Tearful and in pain, Dorothy explains to the local media covering the event that it is not her fault that her house fell here, that she has no idea how one would go about moving a house, and that moving a house probably costs a lot of money of which she has none considered local tender in Oz. (Of course actually she has no money good in any land, having spent all of it on the house in the first place, but that's beside the point.) She is merely a victim in this situation, and begs for help. The locals are sympathetic to her plight, but want the house moved never the less. A few of the more compassionate citizens realize however that everyone can be a victim sometimes. They understand her plight, and suggest to her that perhaps she should seek help from one of the three government agents in Oz. Since she feels are no other options (though she hasn't really looked for any), she decides that they are right and that as both a stranger and victim in this strange land, she deserves such help.

First she sees the Tin Man. Now the Tin Man has no heart. (We suspect that he is a closet conservative or perhaps even a whacko Libertarian, but he has neither confirmed or denied such leanings.) He tells her that there is really nothing that he or the government can or should do for her. They didn't cause the tornado, they don't own the land that the house has fallen on, and it isn't the government's responsibility to move houses or to help people who choose to drop in on Oz unannounced (see illegal immigration). He is very sorry, but he considers this a problem of personal responsibility. He would like her to take responsibility for her situation and leave the government out of it.

Next she goes to see the the Scarecrow. Now the Scarecrow has no brain. (I know, a bureaucrat with no brain, who would have believed it.) He tells her that he really doesn't know if the government can do anything for her. Quite frankly there are so many rules in government these days, that these rules are confusing and contradictory, and no one really understands them; least of all the government. He explains that making tough choices like this is ... well tough, and that he will neither support nor deny help to her at this time. He does say however, that he would be happy to initiate a government funded study to help determine why her house fell there, how it might be moved, and ultimately whose responsibility such a move might be. He smilingly says that he thinks that such a study might be able to be completed in as little as 18 months.

Deep in despair now over the inability of anyone to provide the help for her that Dorothy feels that she is owed, she goes to see the Cowardly Lion. Now the Cowardly Lion has no courage. He does however have a really big heart and a modicum of brains. (It has been said that the bureaucratic mentality is the one constant in the universe. I forget by whom.) He listens to Dorothy's story and breaks down into tears upon its completion. Overwhelmed with love and compassion for her and the desperate plight that she faces he promises Dorothy that he, as a representative of the government of Oz, will take care of everything and that she need not worry ever again. Putting the full force of the government bureaucracy to work, he sits down at his desk and draws up a mandate for immediate government funding for the moving of Dorothy's house to a more suitable location (of her choice of course), and while he's at it he has the entire home renovated. He knows and understands that Dorothy is a victim here (as only a government can understand), even if she did make some ill-conceived choices in her past, and even if she is not really a citizen of Oz. He knows that a caring, concerned, and compassionate government must take care of people in need (and sometimes even those not in need) regardless of the cost or the circumstances.

Dorothy is thrilled of course at having someone take over responsibility for her problem, and gladly accepts the assistance (after all, it doesn't cost her anything). She and the Cowardly Lion pick out a lovely site (which the government purchases, again at no charge to Dorothy), arranges for a contractor to move the house, and does a wonderful job in fixing up the place in the process. All of this is lauded in the local media, praising the compassion of the Cowardly Lion, and by silence, condemning the Scarecrow and Tin Man for their lack of support in this crisis. The people of Oz seem content as well. The problem of Dorothy's house is being addressed, and everyone gets to feel a little good about themselves for the government stepping in to save this poor girl. They don't know why they feel good, but they do; and that's enough.

Now just as Dorothy is about to move in to her now beautiful, relocated, and renovated house in a huge ceremony attended by the Cowardly Lion, the adoring media, and even some of the local populace; along comes a Wizard. The Wizard has nothing to do with the government, but he is a Wizard after all. So the media immediately swarm around him, explaining what's has happened and what's going on now, then ask him for his opinion on the whole thing. After assessing the situation for a just couple of minutes, he nods his head sagely (as all wizards do), then shakes it sadly.

"You'll be sorry," he says; and softly shambles away from the gathering, perhaps leaning on his walking stick a bit more heavily than he had before.

THE END

Well of course that can't be the end. (If it was it would be a pretty crappy ending, wouldn't it?) You see, it seems that the money that had been mandated by the Cowardly Lion for the Dorothy bail-out ended up causing a few problems for the government of Oz. Even government money after all, has to come from somewhere (usually it's citizens). But even government money isn't boundless, and in this case Oz was forced to issue a great number of bonds in order to pay for the unfunded mandates of the Cowardly Lion, so much so that the government soon found itself on the verge of bankruptcy. The Wicked Witch of the East, who had been waiting in the wings and had always wanted to take over things in Oz, saw this as the perfect opportunity to do so. She was able to move in and buy up all of the bonds, effectively putting her in control of the government. And the citizens of Oz who just wanted to get a small housing problem off of their back, ... well they lived in debt, fear, and misery for the rest of their days.

REALLY THE END.

Disclaimer:

Any resemblance to political ideologies or parties, current or proposed government policies, or particular politicians is purely accidentally ... maybe.

That's Not Right #8 - Historical Comparison

Listening to the news these days is becoming a rather frustrating experience. It's not that the news is bad (which it is), or the amount of crap that seems to pass for news (and that's a lot), but instead about the way that news readers (I refuse to call them journalists except on an individual basis based on individual qualifications) use historical comparison to attempt to make a point.

I was truly amazed when some negative economic news was released this week, and said to be the worst since 2002. Wow! Who would have thought that we would have to go back as far as six years (really 5, since 2008 is so young) to find historical data that is worse. The same holds true far too often when we are discussing everything from how much snow or rain an area has received, how cold or hot a winter or summer has been, how large or small the unemployment numbers are, or how fast the US GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is growing.

Now the planet has been around for billions of years, civilization (at least as we know it) has been around for thousands of years, modern record keeping has been around for hundreds of years and the United States has been around for some 232 years. Is it possible that something should fall outside of the norms for some reasonable period of time before we get excited about it? Should bad news not be only the worst in the last decade before we start running around yelling, "The Sky is Falling"? Are the news weenies so desperate to find something to get excited about that they have to tell us that gas prices are the highest that they have been in six months in order to excite our interest?

Now there are a great many people who understand the perspectives of history far better than I do. (Hell, there are people who understand pretty much everything on the planet far better than I do.) It does not however, take an expert in comparative analysis or a historian to realize that the morons who read the news to us seem to have the historical perspective of a mosquito. In a time in which there are so many things out there that we should be afraid of, I often wish that they would not attempt to announce the end of the world every time that some screwball researcher or little known government agency releases a report showing a number that no one should care about anyway.

I'm just saying...

Primaries - A Twisted Beauty Pageant?

Well the primaries are in full swing and the comparisons between them and a twisted beauty pageant have begun to occur to me. I'm not sure if this is the twisted nature of the way that my mind works, or simply something that most people simply don't realize. Let me illustrate:

• We start out with contestants from various states, but no two from any one of them.
• There is an inordinate amount of smiling and waving as the contestants are introduced to us, and throughout the competition for that matter.
• In front of the cameras it's all love and kisses (well OK, some of the time), but you know there is all kinds backstabbing and dog eat dog behavior going on behind the scenes.
• It takes a great deal of sponsorship money to allow contestants to compete.
• Most of the contestants put on a "song and dance" routine as part of their portion of the Talent Competition.
• Part of the process is asking the contestants mostly ridiculous questions, and not expecting or getting answers that are anything but unintelligent, self-serving, and inane.
• After a couple of events, we winnow the field down to a few finalists, who will vie for the title.
• Everyone always argues over whether the winner actually deserved the title after the contest is over.

See, I told you so! Quite frankly, the only differences that I can find are things for which I am eternally grateful:

1. There is no swimsuit competition (I have trouble describing what a relief this is to me).
2. Nobody ever wins Miss Congeniality (and no one ever will).

Posting #100

I find it hard to believe that this is the 100th posting that I have done since I started the madness of this blog site just last summer. I have to admit that it has actually been a rather enjoyable experience for me, as I hope that it has been for most of you. Quite frankly, this whole thing started out as a way of improving my writing skills and abilities (not that this was in any way a possibility, or would make much difference to the nonsense I normally expound upon). It soon became a way for me to pontificate on any number of subjects that I really don't know much about and share my opinion (whether asked to or not) on a variety issues that strike me as being of interest. And it was this second reason may have become a real boon to my friends and family. No, not because my facts or opinions are in any way important to them, but because sharing them with you on paper has spared them the ordeal of listening to me expounding upon them (some would say endlessly) in their presence. I am reasonbly sure that there are those of you out there hoping that I will run out of steam soon, but in the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit that I seem to have a never-ending supply of opinions and an equally never-ending need to share them.

Now as to this whole 100 thing ...

Since milestones are normally used to celebrate, I'm sure that most of you think that I should use this momentous occasion to take on some weighty subject or true societal ill. Of course you would then realize who you were talking about and recognize that I would most likely content myself with writing the stuff that I always write, in an inane effort to continue to appeal to the twisted audience that I have thus far gathered. (Man, you are getting good at this.)

Actually, while not being willing to make a big deal out of the occasion, it does make me think of the blog that I write, the blogs that I read, and the nature of the freedom that this forum and this technology affords us. Now I am sure that there is a lot of nonsense and misinformation out there in cyberspace (I should know better than most, since I hand a good bit of it out.). I believe however, that the Internet affords us the opportunity to know more, understand more, and communicate more than any other civilization in history. I believe that even with all of the bogus information, all of the mean-spiritedness, and all of the stupidity being handed out as wisdom today; that the ability to exchange information on the Internet is the greatest opportunity to exercise freedom that this country has had since it was founded. We are no longer limited to a newspaper, (3) network news broadcasts, and a couple of weekly magazines to understand the world around us. We now have an almost limitless access to information not only from sources in the US, but around the world. This plethora of information sources (some from people who completely disagree with the US world view) provide us a perspective and a choice that has never been seen before. This expansion in our ability to choose how and what we learn and know of our world makes us to be less likely to be fooled by those in our the media and in government. The wealth of information out there is beginning to create in us that most dangerous of societies - the informed and educated.

Sure some of the information out there is wrong, some even maliciously so; but nobody promised that learning would be easy. We need to remember that we are in the infancy of this explosion of information. We therefore, are also in the infancy of our ability to sort through it, separate the wheat from the chaff, and use what we learn to our best advantage. Like every new tool or technology created, the Internet is spawning a myriad of uses which it's inventors never anticipated or maybe even intended. We are only beginning to understand what those uses might be. There is little doubt that it will take time for society to adapt to this flood of information and its possibilities, and it is probable that people of my generation will never succeed.It will be left to the generations that grow up taking for granted this new technology and never remembering a time when it wasn't available that will begin to understand the freedom that is now afforded to them.
Much like the invention of movable type by Gutenberg and the subsequent expansion of the printed word had a direct connection to the free distribution of information that made the American Revolution possible, this new Information Age, brought into full bloom, may be the spark of a new American Revolution and a revitalizing of the ideas that our Founding Fathers sought.

You know now that I look at this, I guess that this is a pretty momentous subject after all. Woo Hoo! Happy 100.

 

I Have Seen The Signs

Yes Ladies and Gentlemen, I have seen the signs,

but it sometimes appears to me that their meaning is less than clear. I use to believe that I knew what some of them meant, but now refuse to believe that I hold the final opinion on the subject. Besides, I am not sure that everyone agrees with me (not that this has ever kept me from holding an opinion). I have therefore decided to put down here what many people appear to believe that certain road signs mean based on their behavior. My hope is that by doing so, perhaps someone will understand all of this and explain it to me. I also have included a few here that simply either intrigue or amuse me.

You can and should only go one way, in this case we would like you to go in the direction of the arrow; unless of course it's an emergency, or you have been drinking excessively.

Please be careful and look out for me, because I am not paying any particular attention to anything around me and for all that I know I will end up in the lane that you are already in.

This is not really a sign, but is never the less still applicable. It obviously has three different meanings, which I used to think were never explained better than in the movie "Starman":

Green = Go
Yellow = Go really fast
Red = Stop

I have since come to believe that the third definition is no longer applicable. With the new technology that most of our cities are employing, the Red signal should now read:  "Smile, we just took a picture of your license plate."

 
No matter which way you decide to go, you're screwed. And don't expect me to take the blame for it, you were the idiot who chose this road in the first place. My advice to you is take your best shot pal, you might get lucky...

You and your car do not need to be here under any circumstances, so just leave. Of course, if you choose to disagree, please feel free to stop here and stay a while. There will be no consequences. (Do you think they bought it?)

Please be advised that the people around here are not the only things that experience Road Rage.








 
Of course these instructions make no sense, but what did you expect? Being confused about it won't do you any good. No matter which way that you decide, we are going to give you a ticket. Pretty funny, huh ?





This may be the only truly honest sign that I discovered. It is clear, to the point, and always correct.

Whiskey

I have previously posted on the subject of wine, but have to admit that this is not the only adult beverage with which I am familiar. Being no authority on the subject will not prevent me from sharing some of my limited knowledge with you in the hope that you too will broaden your horizons, as I do in my own small way. So saying, let me say up front that:

God invented whiskey to keep the Irish from conquering the world.

(... and so far, it has succeeded in doing so)

Whiskey comes from the term "wisge beatha" which means "water of life". It is spirit distilled from malt and/or grain by soaking it in good water and yeast, and allowing it to open up or ferment. This mixture is then placed in a still to cook, and the distilled vapors are condensed to produce a grain alcohol. This is usually then aged in oak barrels for some period to allow the product to gain complexity from the wood. In some cases it is then "blended" by the producer to gain a desired consistent flavor, or subjected to additional aging and finally released in a "single-barrel" derivative. The complexity of the flavors, again much like wine, has a lot to do with the amount of time that the original components spend in the barrel. In fact many whiskey producers use old wine barrels for this aging process. A surprising fact in this may be that unlike wine, where French oak is preferred, whiskey producers tend to lean toward American oak. This works out just fine for American wine producers, as they cannot reuse the barrels, and the distillers provide a ready market for their used ones.

This process of aging, as the components soak into the wood in the heat and return as the product cools down, provides the much of the color that we see in the finished product. In this process however, some 2% per year is lost through evaporation. This is called the "Angels Share" and is accepted by the distiller (sometimes grudgingly). What it means though, is that the longer the product ages, the more that is lost through evaporation. Hence the price difference between a 10-year old, 12-year old, and 25-year old product. Some rare whiskeys are aged for up to 58 years, and are priced accordingly (Johnnie Walker Blue for example). But enough of the technical details, let's talk a little bit about the whiskeys themselves.

I have been know to indulge in the occasional glass of scotch (Some would say that I was Irish by birth, and Scotch by ingestion. This is patently untrue, as my mother is a Corey and from fine Scotch-Irish stock.). In the history of whiskey however, I am glad that the Scotch have finally admitted that they learned to make Whisky from Irish monks. (No this is not a misspelling. Whisky from Scotland is the only one that is supposed to use this spelling, though some producers from Canada and Japan have used it as well. All others must use the "ey" form.) This Whisky hails from two main regions: Islay, an island in the west of Scotland; and Speyside, a whiskey producing region in the Northern Highlands. Anyone who has ever sampled MacAllen 25 year-old, Lagavulin, Glenmorangie (I prefer the madeira wood myself), or my personal favorite 12 year old Balvenie Double Wood (6 years in a port wood cask, 6 years in a Madeira wood cask) knows what fine examples of the distillers art that good scotch whiskey can be. While scotch is without a doubt an acquired taste, and getting past the peat flavors can be a daunting task in the beginning, it would be well worth your effort to try.

Bourbon, once defined as American whiskey that was produced in Bourbon County, Kentucky (though there are actually no distilleries there), is more accurately defined as a whiskey that is produced anywhere in US that is produced with a mash (fermented grain base) that is at least 51%, but not more than 81% corn. Sour mash whiskeys also fall within this category with the term coming from the fact that some of the residue from the previous batch is added to the new mixture before distilling. I cannot say that I am a large fan of Bourbons, but I have been exposed to enough of them over the years that I can appreciate the talent that goes into producing them. Maker's Mark, Booker's, Elijah Craig, and Woodford Reserve are all single barrel versions that I have sampled and enjoyed. Marker's Mark holds the additional distinction of lending its flavor to a cigar by having its wrapper soaked in that beverage (and a great compliment to a sample of the beverage of the same name). On Tennessee side of the picture, Jack Daniels remains king, with both the Gentleman Jack and Jack Daniels single-barrel as efforts that should be on anyone's short list. Rye whiskey too falls under this category. While formerly little known in the US it is gaining a greater audience in recent years, and is greatly appreciated north of the border in Canada. I would love to be able to share more with you on this subject; but I seldom venture to "The Great White North" these days, and my knowledge suffers as a consequence.

In the end, I return to my favorite of the distilled beverages known as whiskey. Here I have experienced a great number of the possible choices (most courtesy of a trip to Ireland for a friend's family reunion and my daughter's wedding a few years back). Though there are many brands of Irish whiskey most, if not all of the Irish whiskeys today however, are produced by IDG (Irish Distillers Group). Amazingly enough this Irish national treasure is owned by the French company Pernod Ricard, which purchased IDG for $525,000,000 in the late 1980's (to the undying shame of the Irish).

There are a number of different versions of the standards, Jameson and Bushmills, each having to do with whether they are a blended or single-barrel whiskey, and the amount of time that they are aged in the barrel. There are additionally, a number other varieties that are well worth indulging in: Paddy, Powers, Tullamore Dew, Red Breast, and Michael Collins. Then there is that rarest and most expensive of Irish Whiskey, Middleton's Very Rare (which amazingly enough is a blended whiskey). This "nectar of the gods" is actually dated by the by the year that it is bottled (with the blend being reformulated every year), and is called very rare because of the small quantities in which it is produced. Irish whiskeys tend to be a little "sweeter" or "lighter" than their counterparts, and may be the easiest on the untried palate.

Serving suggestions:Amazingly enough, even the distillers recommend adding a little water to their product. This "splash" of water opens up the flavors of the whiskey and helps to bring out its complexity. For those of us in the US who seem unable to enjoy a cocktail without ice, I recommend placing a couple of ice cubes (not to be mistaken for loading the glass to the rim) to perform the same function. Many purists (myself included) simply ask for a little water on the side, to allow us to decide what is enough.

In the end, like wine, the best whiskeys are the ones you enjoy. Wade in gently and venture into deeper water when you feel you are ready and I think that you will soon find much to earn your interest. Do not be intimidated by the variety and feel free to take on the more expensive ones when you have learned to appreciate their less expensive counterparts.

...Enjoy

For those who want to learn more, the best information on the subject of whiskey that I found is a wonderful book on the subject: "Whisk(e)y", by Stefan Gabanyi. It is both a definitive tome and a interesting read.

Politics & The Primaries

Well the primaries are beginning to kick into full swing. Iowa, Montana (?), New Hampshire, and now Michigan are complete; with South Carolina and Super Tuesday right around the corner it seems. I am not ready to make a choice of candidate yet (though your odds are better on the lottery than on betting that I will pick a Democrat), but I am ready to touch briefly on the entire subject of politics. Since politicians seem to revel in long winded pontification however, I thought that for a change, I would keep my own input short and sweet. I therefore present for your edification, some my own well-turned phrases on the subject of politics:

• Those who can’t do, teach. Those who don’t know usually manage to get tenure. Those who can’t do and don’t know become consultants and politicians.
• During election years, I often find myself contemplating the advantages of both monarchy and anarchy.
• Politics mesmerizes me like a venomous snake or spider. The process is fascinating, but you dare not take your eyes off of it nor turn your back on it, for fear of the harm that it will do you.
• When I listen to politicians telling me how they can make it a better world for everyone on the late night news, I simply pull the blanket up a little more tightly under my chin and say: “Tell me another bed-time story.”
• I am constantly amazed that liberal politicians think that taking more of my money in taxes will inspire me to work harder.
• It really is the case that life is mostly a “same shit, different day” situation. The only real difference is that during election years the toilet seems to back up more often.

And just so this posting is not entirely about my wit and wisdom, I present the following educational asides on the two main parties for your education and edification: Andrew Jackson’s opponents called him a “jackass” during his run for the presidency in 1828. He liked the image so much that he made the image of the animal the new symbol of his national party, the Democrats. The symbol of the Republican Party, the elephant, is credited to a cartoon by Thomas Nast in the Harper’s Weekly on November 7, 1874. The elephant in that rendering was depicted demolishing what was claimed to be the flimsy planks of the Democratic platform during that election.

Border Security

Lost among the articles on the fatal small plane crash and the primary elections in The Blade edition of January 13, 2008 was a little article from International Falls, MN. It appears that Canada is turning away some US citizens at its border because of DUI convictions in their past. An individual's past is coming much more under scrutiny in recent years for crossing the border to Canada, and such things as convictions for a DUI, passing bad checks, shoplifting, or smoking pot are considered serious enough to deny you entry. Now Canada is a sovereign country and can deny entry to any person that they deem unacceptable or a danger. It is evident that the crimes (which in most cases would be misdemeanors) listed above carry far greater weight and significance there then they appear to do here, especially when looking for those deemed a threat. It also appears that Canada's zeal to enforce border security for their country will pass under most people's radar screen and allow them to escape the criticism that anyone in the US seems to get for any attempt to enforce our own. Ladies and Gentlemen, I can't decide what of this story offends me more; so I will just list my outrages:

1. Where is the outrage in this country when US citizens are denied entry to a neighboring county on what are more than likely misdemeanors, many or which are years in the past?
2. Where are the cries of racism, sexism, or some other "ism" which, though it would have no foundation in fact, would be bandied about as an explanation for such treatment if the US were involved?
3. Where are the tear-jerking stories of vacations and honeymoons destroyed, the hunting and fishing trips ruined, and the long-term emotional scarring left by the callous treatment of these individuals?
4. Was Canada without the offenses of drunk driving, shoplifting, pot smoking, or the writing of bad check; except by foreigners?
5. Have the number of these offenses been reduced or eliminated in Canada by the tougher enforcement of these immigration guidelines?
6. Canada keeps people from entering their country legally, but the US is allowed to do nothing about illegal entry without outrage from both Mexico and Canada.
7. Two border security agents are sitting in prison for their part to keep out a known drug runner, but Canada can deny entry to a person who smoked pot 20 years ago.
8. Three of Canada's major exports are cars, beer, and whiskey; so who is really surprised when they are combined?

Now I have had brushes with some of these offenses in my past, and that may now prevent me from entering Canada in the future (I'm sure that they will recover from the revenue lost in the casinos), but those are not my reason for concern here. These are:

1. Canada used to gladly except people who were violating the law by evading the draft, and now we have lesser violations as reasons for denial of entry.
2. If these offenses are enough to keep someone from crossing the border now, what may be added to the list in the future: excessive speeding tickets, parking tickets, jaywalking, or bad credit?
3. If Canada is allowed to enforce immigration law, why is the US not allowed to?

North America is suppose to be one big, happy family; and the term "Mexamericanada" is often tossed around as a name in our future, as is a currency by the funny little name of the "Amero". (These terms are meant, I suppose, to get us used to a European Union style alliance that may be in our future.) It appears however, that there is a red-haired stepchild in the family, and that this 2nd class family member is the US. We do not seem to have the rights to send our citizens where we will, or to keep out the citizens of other nations without criticism from all sides. Yes, it appears that all nations, like all men, are created equal; but some are more equal than others.

Writing, A Lost Art

"A well-turned phrase usually requires the prodigious use of an eraser."

These words of wisdom are something that I came up with some time ago while struggling to come up with just the right phrasing for something that I was trying to write. That it took me so long to come up with that phrasing speaks to a level of intelligence that I am often embarrassed by. That I chose to spend such a long time in the attempt speaks to my interest in good writing and my desire to become a better writer. That I sometimes succeed in doing so is a constant source of amazement to me and I fear unfortunately, a sign of my age. The unfortunate fact today is that much like basic math skills began to disappear with the introduction of the calculator, basic writing skills are also fading away. Something that used to be considered part of a well-rounded individual, the use of proper spelling, good grammar, and proper sentence structure are becoming a part of history. A number of years of failing education in this area, the reliance on computers with spell check and grammar check, and the increasing use of abbreviated language in text messaging on cell phones is making the skill and art of true writing a lost one. Amazingly to me, this appears to be of little concern to this generation that has lost these skills, as reading too is losing its attraction for them.

At a time when technology has created the greatest opportunity in the history of language to express ourselves, we bastardize its use in order to communicate. Improper or no capitalization, poor spelling, little or no sentence structure, and horrible punctuation seem to be the rule in spite of all of the ways available to correct it. We get our news in sound bites on TV, our books on CD (when we don't just give up and wait for them to make the movie), and our conversations through mini emails on tiny keyboards on our cell phones. Gone are the shining examples of the written word, faded away like the often lofty ideals that they attempted to portray. Instead we find ourselves with such plums of literary phrasing as:

lol
u r here
txt me
and of course,
:-)

Even here in the blogging world there are far too many efforts that border on illiteracy. The focus these days is far too often the quantity of content and the passion of the writer, rather than on the method of expression or the proper use of language. This is not to take away from that content and passion, as it at least shows some interest by these people in the world around them and a desire for something better (even when what they want is wrong or misguided). I long however, for some of the well turned phrases from literary efforts of the past. If the ideas are that important to the writers, you would think that expressing them in even a somewhat coherent manner would be of paramount importance. There are certainly exceptions to this in the blogging world (and I won't embarrass either the failures or successes by mentioning names), but shamefully, the examples that lower the literary bar are far to many to simply discount.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not that I consider my own contributions of prose as something comparable to Jefferson or Shakespeare (unless you are talking about the really hideous TV show from years ago or the fishing reel, and I probably suffer by comparison even then), but I do make an attempt to show some level of technical skill in the art of writing. That's one of the reasons that I have to limit the number of postings that I put up. It's hard work to come up with something interesting, carry that thought through in some rational manner, and attempt to make it both interesting and readable (and occasionally amusing, of course). This process, at least for me, requires considerable effort, time, and editing. First efforts are rarely the best, and even second and third efforts can normally use a bit of tweaking (as I am doing on this posting now, even in the last moments before putting it up). Every posting becomes a difficult birthing process, even by my limited standards for publishing.

Perhaps all of this is just a sign of a change in society really doesn't make a difference, and shouldn't be something that I get all wound up about; but I mourn the loss none the less. I know, I know, that it is a sure sign of age to long for the "Good Old Days" and this is certainly not my goal, as the posting of the same name should easily point out http://justblowingsmoke.blogspot.com/2007/06/good-old-days.html No, what I mourn for is the the potential loss of some truly great idea by someone who is truly gifted, because of being unable to properly communicate it to the rest of us. What great philosophies, stories, and insights may become lost to us, ignored because of the inadequate ability of the technological shorthand that we have made so much a part of our lives.