EGG NOG (Recipe)

CAPTAIN BRADLEY'S EGG NOG
© 11/15/07, 11/26/10. All rights reserved.

(The following is a recipe generously shared with me years ago by a retired Navy captain whose daughter was my first wife’s roommate at Hollins College.)

This is the real deal. Not for children or alcoholics or sissies.
Could be habit-forming. Probably not a good idea for the office Xmas party.
Protect the lamp shades! Drinkers might show their asses and get fired!
Guaranteed to turn any ol' crappy, boring Xmas party into a good time, however!

It makes almost a gallon of liquid, so make room!!

Create a LOT of space in the refrigerator. You will need it later.
Go buy a nutmeg grater and some FRESH whole nutmeg.
You don't want to use that crummy stale powder out of the little can.

Most of the following ingredients should be cold:

INGREDIENTS:
One quart whole milk
One quart whipping cream
One quart whiskey (rum, bourbon, rye, whatever CHEAP--probably not scotch!)
OK--750 ml. if you INSIST on using the metric system!! (Actually a bit more.)
12 TBSP granulated sugar
12 fresh raw eggs, separated
Lots o' nutmeg

ACTION:
Beat 12 egg yolks smooth and mix with sugar in medium bowl and dissolve sugar best as possible.
S-L-O-W-L-Y pour whiskey into yolk/sugar mix to "cook" the yolks while thoroughly stirring.
This step is probably the only thing that prevents illness from consuming raw egg.
You won't care, though. This ain't about your HEALTH!!!
The sugar should thoroughly dissolve.
Set aside.

IN A HUGE BOWL, PREF. STAINLESS STEEL OR COPPER:
Whisk or beat egg whites into thick froth with stiff "peaks." Set aside.
In another big bowl, whip cream into thick froth with stiff "peaks."
Blend egg yolks/sugar/whiskey mixture into whipped cream. Use whisk.
Blend in whipped egg whites.
Blend in quart of whole milk.

AT THIS POINT, the mix will still be very thick and frothy, and it will fill the bowl.
The whiskey taste will be prominent and powerful.
The color will be off-white/creamy.

THEN:
Add more whiskey if you like.
Put into refrigerator and chill after liberal taste-testing. One can't be too careful!
The whites and cream will separate and float over time, so re-whisk before tasting again, then serving COLD!!!
Add lots of nutmeg (preferably fresh-grated from whole nutmegs, as you were instructed) for serious taste augmentation!
Add more whiskey if you like. Just in case.

Get really screwed up! Gain lots of weight! Get thoroughly bloated! Waddle through your Xmas shopping!

Offer to refill guests' cups so you can sneak more for yourself! They will think you are merely a great host! (You selfish pig!)

If you like to live dangerously, keep adding more whiskey as the level drops!!

This thing has serious calories and serious booze effects. Screw the diet!

Seriously tasty. You will never touch that commercial dairy-case crap again!

In fact, you will wait anxiously all summer long for it to be Xmas again so you can make the egg nog!

And, screw Thanksgiving!

PEE-PUHL vs. "STATES' RIGHTS"

(The following was eventually published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch in slightly (& poorly) edited form on December 27, 2007 as "Correspondent of the Day.".)

I offer my commendations for both Bruce Tucker of Keswick, the "Correspondent of The Day" (December 19), and Barton Hinkle's Times-Dispatch column of November 27 addressing the clear meaning of "right of the people" in our Constitution and its Amendments.

The US Supreme Court will soon decide the meaning and significance of the plain language in the Second Amendment (*) as it conflicts with stringent gun-control laws in the District of Columbia. Unfortunately, many gun-control advocates seek to "cherry-pick" the Bill of Rights as Mr. Hinkle suggests. But, the Founders were not as sloppy with their use of language as folks are today!

The subject of the Amendment is not the maintenance of "a well-regulated militia." There is no predicate in that precatory "militia" clause! Proper diagramming identifies the subject ("right of the people") and the predicate ("shall not be infringed"). If disarmament be so compelling, then amending the Constitution is the only legitimate remedy.

Interestingly, John C. Calhoun (initially an ardent nationalist) said that the Constitution did NOT guarantee rights to "the people" individually but only collectively through their anointed proxies, the States!

In "Dominion of Memories," Professor Susan Dunn of Williams College cites Calhoun's arguments as derivative of those made by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. I was surprised to learn that they initiated both the Doctrine of "Nullification" and the Doctrine of "Interposition," the twin pillars of Calhoun's theories of "states' rights." As Mr. Hinkle points out, the states were reserved (not granted) only "powers" under the Tenth Amendment, not "rights." Only individuals have "rights" (as stated in the Ninth Amendment), and not just the recited ones, either!

If there are too many folks out there who should not have guns, then ignoring the plain language and meanings of the Founders at the whim of some political majority du jour is not the proper way to deal with the problem.

(*)  (Re: DC vs. HELLER, 2008, from Cornell Law School:)

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.

PUT UP AND SHUT UP

(A slightly edited version of the following letter was published in "The Nation," issue dated December 31, 2007.)

Despite my general agreement with Katha Pollitt's observations about the futility of atheist "conversions," I am always troubled by apparent believers presuming us atheists to be evangelists for our own lack of belief.

I don't presume to speak for any other nonbeliever, and there have certainly been those (like Madalyn Murray O'Hair) who have proselytized the atheist "movement," but I really cannot be bothered to concern myself with what anyone else may or may not believe. The only thing that a committed atheist should be prepared to resist is any attempt to infuse faith-based nonsense into our governments. Each of us here has a fundamental right to secular, not atheistic governments. There is a big difference as far as I am concerned. Our governments are not permitted to take religious "sides" or positions under our Constitution. That is the promise not only of the First Amendment but also Article VI. That is so that each of us will be treated fairly by the government, not to "disprove" the existence of that which may not be disproved. (That would take a very flimsy deity, indeed!)

I almost always admit that I cannot disprove the existence of any deity. Why should I care? It is really none of my business what anyone else chooses to believe. Or not. That is what real freedom is about.

It IS my business to preserve that freedom, and I do so by insisting that my governments be secular and that people are not hurt or harassed in the name of religion.
*******************************************
The First Amendment obviously protects government officials in expression of their own individual religious beliefs, but that does not mean they should do so. Whenever acting as government officials, they should keep it to themselves. It is unethical and unpatriotic for them to do otherwise, based upon my reading of Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits a religious test for public office in the US.

HABEASS

HABEASS

© 12/5/07 All rights reserved.

In or about 2005, after the US Supreme Court (the “Court”) threw out two procedures used by President George W. Bush to detain alleged enemy combatants at the federal detention center at Guantanamo on the island of Cuba, the US Congress quickly passed a series of laws intended to address certain flaws found by the Court in those detentions effected merely on the basis of the President’s authority. The Court had said that, without congressional approval, such powers over detainees could not be allowed. The implication was, however, that if the Congress did “bless” such arrangements, the Court would allow them.

Among the many anti-terror provisions promoted by the Bush Administration and recently adopted as law, the Congress prohibited the courts from hearing any detainee claims seeking writs of habeas corpus (Latin literally translated as “produce the body”). Such writs have been part of the Anglo-American legal system since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 CE by King John of England, and they were formally adopted by the Parliament at least 400 years ago. The writ is usually directed to the local sheriff to produce in court a prisoner who is claiming some sort of legal deprivation. In England the sheriff enforced the King's laws, so such a writ addressed to a sheriff was deemed also addressed to the King. It established the primacy of the courts over the government.

It has been argued that the habeas corpus process is unduly cumbersome and may well result in terrorists being released to harm Americans. Other provisions of law so adopted prohibit such detainees from having pesky lawyers or being allowed to know the witnesses and evidence being used against them. It also allows the government to imprison the alleged “terrorists” (solely identified or determined by the government) without charge or trial unless and until the government feels like providing such. It is argued that the fact that these persons are held outside of the actual boundaries of the United States enables these summary procedures to be used against them.

Under the US Constitution as originally drafted and adopted, the Congress is allowed to manipulate the appeals jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court (but not the original jurisdiction, which is specifically established under the Constitution). Thus, it has been argued that the Congress can totally prohibit certain kinds of cases from ever being heard by the Court (such as habeas corpus cases or Guantanamo “terrorist” cases). Since all that was written and adopted, however, the Constitution has been further amended by the adoption of the 5^th Amendment to require that all persons receive due process under the law. Thus, I would argue that the Congress may well restrict and manipulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, SO LONG AS it does not compromise that “due process” provision.

Finally, this week, the Court heard arguments on behalf of certain detainees who are claiming habeas corpus rights and also to be allowed other basic procedural rights like access to a lawyer, specificity of charges and accusations, right to confront witnesses and evidence, and so forth. Such rights are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights to persons inside the US, but they are supposedly eliminated for alleged “enemy combatants” and alleged “terrorists” being held at Guantanamo.  That's not what the Bill of Rights says, though.

On December 5, I was listening to some of the oral argument in a Supreme Court case being broadcast on C-SPAN. I heard the government’s lawyer claim that the new statutory procedures are probably “better” than the habeas corpus procedures as they were understood to exist in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted in Philadelphia. (The Bill of Rights was adopted about 18 months later.)  The lawyer admitted that habeas corpus rights as interpreted today are probably more expansive than the rights granted under the new federal laws for detainees. In any event, in response to multiple questions from the Justices, he further admitted that the government was seeking to ban any use of habeas corpus by detainees, but he said that the new laws would give them “adequate” alternative rights that would ensure no innocent persons would be unfairly held or punished.

Several of the Justices pointed out that the current case had been pending for over six years, and the government lawyer admitted that as well. However, he said, that was due to the uncertainty of the law creating "unexpected delays" in the progress of the cases. He further admitted that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the new laws did not allow any habeas corpus proceedings, so there was no way such appeals should proceed to the Supreme Court. Several Justices inquired how a detainee could get alternative relief and a full and fair review of his case if ultimate jurisdiction was so limited. The government lawyer suggested that the Court could uphold the new laws on “alternate grounds” and spell out for the lower courts how to proceed promptly EVEN IF there was no way to get further review directly.

One of the detainees’ lawyer pointed out in rebuttal that the evidence used against his client was not shown to the accused nor to the lawyer; that even the trial judge’s written opinion had been “redacted” (partially deleted with black lines) which the accused and the lawyer had not been allowed to fully read; that the government and military got to create and validate the “evidence” used against the accused which the DC Circuit Court had said was sufficient for the conviction; that the DC Circuit Court had prohibited the accused from introducing sworn affidavits of foreign nationals not subject to subpoena, which affidavits specifically refuted the “evidence” compiled by the government, on the specious grounds that no further evidence should be considered by the courts; that the trial judge had described the government’s case as “Kafka-esque” in its bias against and unfairness toward the accused.  No big deal.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the trial judge’s decision in favor of the accused, reinstated the detention without charge, without lawyer, without evidence and without due process, and the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court is composed of nine justices who serve for life. Five (simple majority) can decide any case. Five are alleged "conservatives" appointed by Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The Congress is subject to the provisions of the Constitution just like the President, but the Court has signaled that the problems it found with the earlier presidential procedures can be remedied by the blessings of Congress. Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution spells out specifically that the privilege of habeas corpus “shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” There has yet to be any specific finding by the Congress nor any court of a state of “rebellion” or “invasion.”

In short, there is a major constitutional crisis pending in these matters. It all depends upon the decision of the Supreme Court in these matters. If the Court decides that these accused persons are entitled to some or all of the relief sought, certain people will feel very threatened and certain politicians will try to inflame those fears and exploit them. There could be a substantial revolt against such a decision by the Court since fears and tensions are now almost at fever pitch. That would not bode well for respect for the Court, which has no army to enforce its decisions.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if the Court rules against the accused, then it will validate the short-cut procedures that have been used in this set of cases, and the damage to the Constitution and Bill of Rights is obvious to me. Many of the ordinary people who are citizens of the United States are fierce in their devotion to "The Flag," and they are very critical of those who demur from pledging allegiance thereto. They seem much less devoted to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and to its core principles, which is where their sole allegiance should be, according to Article VI therein. They are virtually intolerant of a lot of “legal double-talk and folderol.” And, they are very intolerant of non-Christian presumed “terrorists” who should be locked up and held until they might “prove” their innocence.

______________________________

AWAY IN A DANGER

Did I say, “Danger”? I guess I meant “manger.”

One of the sure ways to go to Hell for Eternity is to mess with the Baby Jesus. It is too late for me, but perhaps I can dissuade some other youngsters from following my path of depravity. When I was young and reckless (I’m cured now), I was eager to celebrate the Birth of the Baby Jesus each year with liberal use of exploding devices. 
 Back in the 1950’s I was one of several feral boys growing older in rural North Carolina, where firecrackers were absolutely forbidden. It was just a short drive, however, to the Virginia State Line, and the licensed older brother of one of my cohorts was usually willing to transport us there to acquire all manner of explosives then legally sold there, and with a little wheedling, we might be able to purchase some of the really neat Forbidden Fruit sold from, literally, under the counter. Like cherry bombs. And silver bombs (known otherwise by some as “M-80’s”). The really loud stuff.

And in our pious religious zeal, we were only too happy to welcome the Birth of the Christ Child with lots of loud explosions all over several neighborhoods at night, during the Christmas Break from school. I can still feel the cold air hard on my face and plunging into my lungs as we breathlessly prepared our charges and ran like Hell to get away from the dangerous effects AND the risk of apprehension. We knew from experience that we were bullet-proof and would live forever!

Now, I had one friend who was particularly scheming and nefarious in his use of said exploding stuff. There was a great lady who lived just up the hill from my house, and she always decorated her big, beautiful holly bush in the front yard with wonderful colored outdoor lights. It was a reliable icon of Christmas to see those lights go up on the bush each year, and they were truly wonderful. But that did not stop us from "taking steps.”

My friend (let’s not reveal his name here, just for the sake of protecting the guilty), had figured out that the ladyfinger firecrackers (of which we always had pocketfuls) would wedge just nicely in the crease between the bulb and the socket. He then demonstrated that said ladyfinger would explode from the heat of the bulb given enough time. Enough time to easily make our escape. And, of course, that great lady would have absolutely no idea who was sneaking into her front yard under cover of darkness and blowing up her Christmas lights.  No-sir!  As I was the only adolescent male in the neighborhood, we were sure of it!

Now, back in the years immediately following World War II, most Christmas lights were wired in series, meaning that the current for each light had to pass through all the other lights. Thus, if one light went out, the whole string went out. And, unfortunately, those beautiful, multi-colored holly-tree lights were wired in series, so that when the ladyfinger popped, the whole string of lights went dark, gratifying our craven little souls to no end. We were greatly amused at the magnificent power we wielded with such minimal effort. Each year she would put up those lights, and each year we would pop them off at least once. The fact that we were annoying my poor neighbor greatly did not even enter into the equation. This was not about her. We had no beef with her. We just liked to plan and execute. Just like soldiers blowing up Jap or German bridges in war movies.

It never occurred to any of us that most rational adults would readily conclude that we were at the bottom of these pranks. We were impervious to such conclusions. After all, if we were not actually caught in the act, then in our linear minds we had what would later come to be known as “plausible deniability.” We had no comprehension that such an absurd defense would be as equally ineffective then as it is today. It is sobering to reflect on those times and to realize that those national leaders claiming such defenses today are exhibiting no more intellectual sophistication than we were able to muster on those cold winter nights. One must wonder what those folks reflect upon, if anything.

Eventually, we tired of such stuff and quit making those essential runs to Virginia to obtain the contraband necessary for our nasty deeds. I guess we had done just about everything that could be done with fireworks and got bored. But practically all of us were at one time captivated by the notion that having time off from school meant using fireworks. It was a given. It was a true Christmas Tradition!

______________________________

JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS

From "Wilderness: A Journal of Quiet Adventure in Alaska" by Rockwell Kent, 1919:

Doing as one is told is an attractive trait in children and a most unsettling trait in grown-ups.

DEATH, AS DEFINED BY CHILDREN (Song)

(The following is a ditty we used to sing as children for our own amusement that I recently sent to a friend, after commenting on a TV program I saw about pathologists studying dead bodies' decomposition and recording the data therefrom to assist with time-of-death determinations.)

"Didja ever think when a hearse goes by,
That you would be the next to die?
They wrap you in a big white sheet,
And bury you about 6 feet deep.

You're quite all right for the first few weeks,
But then your coffin starts to leak--
The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The worms play pinochle on your snout!

Your stomach turns a slimy green,
And guts pour out like thick whipped cream!
You sop it up with a piece of bread,
And that's what you eat after you're dead!

BAPTIST, CATHOLIC, JEW (Joke #1)

A Baptist, a Catholic and a Jew are in a lifeboat.
The ship has sunk and the seas are raging all around, and the lifeboat is almost swamped.
The Baptist prays, "Wash me of my sins, Lord, and deliver me from this peril!"
The Catholic prays, "I now confess my sins, Lord; please deliver me from this peril!"
The Jew says, "Oy! Haven't I been punished enough, already?"

Alpha & Omega (2 poems)

exquisite

Breath, oh so hard coming; my

Chest is thick with anticipation.

Sleep is a dear experience; time

Crawls, as in a cannabine fog.

Defining this exquisite excruciation,

Opining as to its "very real sense."

Nonsense! I can no more than babble--

Consequence eludes consciousness.

"UNDERSTAND, NOW, one can't be too hasty in such matters-

On first and second date, stay cool, don't

Drool all over her,

Fool!" Restraint escapes discipline.

She is almost here; I clock her course,

Breezing, breathing, closer in my mind.

Let her presence be as thrilling as her image;

Yet her memorized features hide from my straining brain.

A car door's muffled thud:

Ardor's racing past uncertainty.

Passion jolts my heart as I see her,

Dashing into my arms' tight embrace.

(November 6, 1987)

exit

Breath, oh so hard coming; my

Chest is thick with pain and dread.

Sleep is a dear experience; time

Crawls, as in a cannabine fog.

Defining this exit excruciation,

Opining as to its "very real sense."

Nonsense! I can no more than babble--

Consequence eludes consciousness.

"UNDERSTAND, NOW, one can't be too hasty in such matters-

No first or second dates; don't fret,

Time yet for tears, fears;

Opine as to what happened. Knowledge escapes consciousness.

She is gone now; I clock her course,

Leaving, fading, farther from my mind.

Oh, how her presence was so thrilling, so reassuring;

Now her memorized features hide from my straining brain.

A car door's muffled thud:

Ardor's racing past uncertainty.

Fear and sadness jolt my heart; it is not she,

No longer in my arms' tight embrace.

(May 18, 2006)

"Creator" vs. "creator"

Many folks these days are citing Thomas Jefferson’s references in the Declaration of Independence to “Creator” and to “Nature’s God” as “proof” that the Founders intended for the United States government to be a dedicated Christian government. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration in 1776, and he was also the primary author of a lesser-known document that is memorialized on his tombstone, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

The Statute is still codified in Virginia law as Section 57-1. I would describe its language as “sternly separationist,” but others might be of a different opinion. The Statute is spread below in the "February" chapter of this Blogsite, so you readers may draw your own conclusions.

One of the more interesting aspects of the Statute is the explicit warning from Jefferson that pseudo-moralistic do-gooders would subsequently try to modify the Statute and destroy the strict separation of religion and government contained in it. My delegate, Bill Janis, a self-righteous, disingenuous, pompous Republican ass, attempted to modify the underlying separationist language in the Virginia Constitution by introducing an overt religion-promoting amendment in 2006 that was fortunately killed in a Virginia Senate committee after passing the House of Delegates. He vehemently argued the fraudulent pretext that he was merely trying to promote religious liberty thereby. Most Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates do not respect history. His attempted dirty work is also recited below.

It is simply inconceivable to me that the same person who authored the strict separation found in the Virginia Statute intended to manifest an overt Christian purpose to the American Revolution. That is illogical and also disregards Jefferson’s clear self-description as a “Deist,” not a Christian. Nevertheless, the “Jesus crowd” desperately insists on the foregoing citations as their “proof.”

Keep in mind the following facts:

Modern German capitalizes ALL nouns. Routinely.

Written English was not "standardized" until the advent of public schools and widely distributed texts (like the "McGuffey Reader") beginning in the late 1800's.

Writers of English in the 1700's ROUTINELY capitalized all nouns. This is reflected in the script copies of both the Declaration and of the Constitution, at least the first reference to any noun is capitalized.

I have always believed this was a habitual holdover from ancient Anglo-Saxon which is /was a Germanic language. Perhaps that is just a coincidence, but I think not.

Now, as noted above, American religionists make much of Jefferson's capitalized use of "Creator" endowing the "unalienable Rights" granted by "Nature and Nature's God" etc. as evidence that Jefferson was a practicing Christian who INTENDED to establish a Christian theocracy here with special references to Yahweh. How anyone could assume that the author of the Va. Statute for Religious Freedom could have intended a Christian theocracy is abusurd in the extreme! Obviously, those who so argue have never read Jefferson's Statute. The Statute is unambiguously and viciously secular in its reach and intent!

I happen to think that Jefferson's Declaratory references to "Creator" and "Nature's God" would be routinely written under modern grammar rules as "creator" and "nature's god," but I cannot prove it. I doubt very seriously if Jefferson was referring to the Judeo-Christian Yahweh in the Declaration. I think he'd be stunned to hear the modern religionist arguments to the contrary!

In any event, the religionists can't prove their theories, either! We will likely never know for sure.

There are some other “sacred cows” that need some attention:

In Article VI in the main body of the Constitution there is a specific prohibition of religious tests for public office. Never mind the First Amendment. It also prohibits oaths and affirmations for public officials for ANYTHING other than to support the Constitution. No pledges of loyalty to "graven images" like flags and crosses and swastikas may be demanded of public officials.

Thus, I think professions of religious faith by political candidates are unethical and unconstitutional, and I think journalistic prurience therefor is also unethical!! A journalist may only legitimately raise the issue if a hypocritical situation presents itself. Of course, the First Amendment protects these sorts of utterances, but that does not satisfy the ethical dilemma.

So, I would also submit that the Virginia law requiring public-school students to pledge and their teachers to lead allegiance to a flag is unconstitutional, regardless of the "under God" stuff. In my opinion, Michael Newdow was an arrogant idiot! He set constitutional law back seriously with a very bad precedent.

True patriots should not stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, nor should they tolerate candidate professions of religious belief nor the journalists who make such inquiries. Our loyalties as citizens should be strictly to the Constitution.

GOD'S WARRIORS

(The following was originally written as a series of e-mails to various acquaintances on August 23, 2007 following the 3-night CNN special of the foregoing title by Christianne Amanpour,)

Pursuant to what I learned from the CNN special, I have made at least 8 observations of characteristics seemingly shared by all three fundamentalist groups, ultra-Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. I have also just finished reading Jimmy Carter's new book, "Peace, Not Apartheid," which is a good supplemental read on these topics. Carter was interviewed by Amanpour several times. I think Thomas Friedman has also prolifically written on Middle East issues.

In fact, I would say that one of the major ironies of their mutual distrust and even hatred of each other (less so between Orthodox Jews and right-wing Christians) is how much they are all alike!

Anyway, here they are:

1--They each claim infallibility, as much as the others are so "obviously" wrong;

2--They each are certain that their deity of choice (who is supposedly the same shared deity) is on their side exclusively (supports #1);

3--They are each convinced that the rest of the world is in serious decline and that their belief structure is the only salvation;

4--The more extreme of each group is willing to inflict harm on the others to prevail. They are each defined mainly by what human behavior they are AGAINST, and that is also generally shared between groups;

5--Each is also convinced they are under attack and endangered for their beliefs; and

6--They are each able to recruit unquestioning disciples who manifest their own extremist views. Some are willing to die therefor.

7—There is a reliance of each on an ancient infallible text as the source of their infallible authority, to the exclusion of any current empirical observations; and

8—Most persons in each group manifest a certitude that they speak and act for their respective deities, tied in with Nos. 2 and 4.

I was transfixed by what I saw, even as I was angered, especially by what I was seeing and hearing about the right-wing Christians on the last night. It is obvious there is a LOT of money flowing into each fundamentalist group, and that they have enormous secular power in their respective geographic areas. In fact, their persecution complexes are actually assisting them financially and politically. The right-wing Christians are especially ironic in claiming and exercising their First Amendment rights to promote their religion in the US while being willing to legally relegate other religions to secondary status!

Their common opposition to homosexuality, sexual liberation/female liberation, female clergy, secular government, secular entertainment, alcohol consumption and other shared "enemies" is striking. Therein lies the root of the decline of civilization they each deplore and vow to correct.

They are each defined mostly by intolerance of nonbelievers. This makes them each very dangerous, but in the US, at least, they are free to promote such aims.

Finally, I am moved to conclude that mental and emotional stability may be in inverse proportion to religious belief, irrespective of cult. I hate to generalize about any group of people for I have always tried to judge only individuals, but while I am willing to consider individual exceptions to the foregoing assumption, I am wary of anyone who puts his/her own religious beliefs beyond question. That sort of arrogance borders on mental illness, in my view.

The term, "psycho asshole" comes to mind!

I am aware of the distinction between "fundamentalist" Christians and "evangelical" Christians. I have used "fundamentalist" interchangeably with "right-wing" since there are some evangelicals who are not right-wing. I can't say I know any "liberal" fundamentalists!

Now, having explored at length the 8 or so major similarities among ultra-Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians as presented via Christianne Amanpour's three-night program on CNN, I now feel obliged to acknowledge one significant difference between those groups, and that is how they each address and utilize violence in furtherance of their respective goals.

The fundamentalist Christians talk violently, but for the most part they have no need for the use of it because they are so empowered, primarily in the US. There are some exceptions, like Eric Rudolph and the other abortion-clinic bombers. On the other hand, the least empowered (in the Western World sense) are the Muslims, and they seem to reach for violent acts almost indiscriminately. Ironically, both groups are strong on belief in an afterlife (less so, I think, for most Jews), but Christians seem much less willing to go there than Muslims, whose ethic seems to reflect a certain oriental attitude (moreso than Christians) that diminishes the significance of earthly life. Muslims seem much more prepared for self-sacrifice than either of the two other groups. Their use of indiscriminate violence toward "infidels" seems the most frequent.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews are quite empowered, but their violence seems acutely focused toward Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians. What is so striking to me about the attitudes of some is their seeming pleasure at their targeted use of violence, which is reflected in Israel state policy as well. That obvious pleasure is chilling to observe, and perhaps for me the most terrifying. I contrast that pleasure with the grim attitude of most Muslims and the bombast of fundamentalist Christians. While some Islamic states may be officially aggressive or violent, Israel is the most overtly violent, though almost exclusively toward Palestinians, and that moves me to conclude that Israel is a terrorist state. Others will surely and vehemently disagree, but if North Korea and Iran so qualify, then Israel certainly does as well in my opinion. Furthermore, the US taxpayer is directly funding a lot of that anti-Palestinian violence.

I think that is about all I can say on the subject.

MAYA LIN (Poem)

MAYA LIN

(The following was written in May of 2007 and revised 6/26/07:)

Black Granite Hole;

Bomber wing of shame, plunged, imbedded into the Earth.

Searing laser names, following me like piercing eyes.

Yet, I return, time and again, knowing no one thereon.

Yet, I return, time and again, weeping uncontrollably,

Knowing no one thereon.

Tearful anger boils inside.

No one thereon has any business thereon.

That undeclared “war” was bullshit.

This undeclared “war” IS bullshit.

Déjà vu all over again.

Innocents sent by “elders,” safely ensconced in their upholstery.

Innocents dying bravely or being mangled,

For Dog and Country.

Corporations making money.

Dulce et decorum est.

Fail to “support the troops” at your cowardly peril.

“Fight ‘em there or fight ‘em here.”

“They” are already here; always have been. Oops.

Kill ‘em anyway.

Feeling good is patriotic.

Feeling patriotic is good.

HABEAS WHA?

(Submitted as a letter to the Editor of "The Nation" magazine, 3/9/07)

Habeas corpus: "Produce the body."

At English common law, that was one of the writs a court could issue to command a sheriff (one of the King's servants and policy executioners) to bring forth a prisoner (being held pursuant to the King's law) and to explain the legal basis for the prisoner's detention.

PRESUMABLY (and contrary to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's recent assertions), that doctrine was preserved as a right in the US for people following the American Revolution.

David Sentelle and the other statist on the DC (federal) Circuit Court review panel asserted (2-1) that habeas corpus did not apply to anyone physically outside of the official geographic boundaries of the US. Supposedly, the doctrine is NOT a restraint on the POWER of the US government (as it was a restraint on the power of the King of England, who had no "Gitmo" to drag prisoners to, just Australia) but is, instead, a dispensation from a benevolent government to those lucky individuals who just happen, perhaps by accident, to be behind an artificially-drawn line on a map. Following the (il)logic of the DC Circuit, all the "king" would have to do is kidnap some schmuck and drag him or her across the border and, voila!, there would be no more pesky due process, no more pesky habeas corpus, no more pesky Bill of Rights! "In the US" means exactly that and nothing else.

According to David Cole, the poor dears on the DC Circuit could not find where the King of England had, by 1789, deigned to allow foreign nationals the right of habeas corpus. I am comforted to know that the DC Circuit finds the King's benevolences 218 years ago to be dispositive of my rights today. I mean, we gotta teach those Muslim "towel-heads" who's boss, right?

So, in total disregard of what most of the Founders said, over and over, in total disregard of what most learned scholars have said, over and over, silly little doctrines like "due process," habeas corpus, etc. are NOT restraints on the power of the US government, anywhere, anytime, but are, instead, subject to the political whims of, say theoretically, a cowardly, corrupt Congress and a nefarious, emotionally disturbed, dry-drunk Chief Executive. Theoretically speaking.

David Sentelle, Robert Bork, John Wu, Alberto Gonzales, Ed Meese, et als, have each expressed the notion many times that, contrary to the NINTH AMENDMENT, "rights" don't exist unless a court somewhere or a law explicitly says so. They would likely say that "rights" are not a restraint on government power but are conditional, depending upon what the "king" says. AND, government powers are UNLIMITED (contrary to the TENTH AMENDMENT) unless and until a court says otherwise. Screw the Bill of Rights! I'm sure Alberto Gonzales can find some exceptions.

Interesting. I dread what Samuel Alito, John Roberts, et als, are going to do with this matter.

"Uh-oh, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down!"

VOLTS vs. RESISTANCE

THE (APPARENT) PARADOX OF VOLTAGE AND RESISTANCE

(The following was written in the fall of 2006 as a statement of understanding of electrical technology.)

One of the issues that has caused me much confusion in my studies of auto technology is the apparent paradoxical relationship between voltage and resistance in a series electrical circuit. Now, for the benefit of the “electrically challenged,” most motor vehicles are electrically powered by 12-volt batteries which, by their very nature, produce what is called “direct” current (DC), as opposed to the 110-volt “alternating” current (AC) in most houses. Household alternating current switches polarity (+ and -) 60 times per second (60 Hertz) back and forth, while vehicular direct current does not change its polarity at all. It is a steady stream of current out of the battery (which is recharged by the generator/alternator) unbroken except by various switches. Most vehicles are negatively grounded, meaning the (-) pole on the battery is hooked up to the engine block, chassis and body, while most of the various devices are hooked up only to the (+) terminal through the fuse panel and/or the ignition switch, and then to the block, body or chassis for ground.
The general reader should know that voltage (volts) is merely the energy or “pressure” within a circuit; current (amps) is the “juice quantity” in a circuit (like gallons in a water pipe); while resistance (ohms) is any load impeding the flow of electricity in a circuit, much like a fire hose feeding into a garden hose. Every single part of an electric circuit inherently creates some resistance to the flow of electricity, even the wires. So, bulbs, motors, heating elements, hair dryers and such all produce resistances on a circuit.

The general reader should also understand that only a broken or switching voltage can be changed up or down through a transformer or coil. Thus, alternating household voltages are easy to transform (and usually are) while vehicular DC voltage has to be deliberately interrupted with a switch or breaker of some sort, to enable the steady magnetic field that surrounds all wires carrying a direct current to “collapse” through the wiring present to induce a current in other nearby wires, such as what happens in a vehicle ignition coil.

In a vehicle coil for a gasoline-powered engine (Diesels don’t have coils or electrical ignition), the primary ignition circuit runs from the battery to the ignition switch to the “primary” windings of a single wire in the coil to the ignition “breaker” points in the distributor which act as a switch to rapidly interrupt the primary current’s flow back to ground through the distributor and engine block. The secondary ignition windings (also a single wire) in a coil are nestled next to the primary windings, and they are much more numerous than the primary windings. As the distributor spins around the breaker points close and open, thus interrupting the primary current flow. More modern cars use transistorized switching components rather than mechanical breaker points.

The magnetic field standing around the 12-volt (or less) primary wire in the coil collapses back through the more numerous secondary windings in the coil, thus inducing a much higher voltage (over 30,000 volts) in the secondary windings. This high-voltage current jumps the air gap in the distributor between the rotor and the cap, then again jumps another air gap in the spark plugs themselves, thanks to the much higher available voltage. The plugs are grounded to the engine block, which is where the high-voltage surge wants to go. As the spark jumps the gaps in the plugs, the gasoline-and-air mix burns, and the pistons inside the engine are successively shoved down by the resultant pressure from the burning gases. That is essentially what makes the engine turn over and run.

A seeming paradoxical “beast” reared its ugly head most recently in a discussion of the effects of resistance in the secondary circuits that fire spark plugs in an engine, to-wit: that higher voltages are not “impeded” by existing resistances, per se, such as those encountered with the air gaps in distributors and spark plugs. Yet resistors are frequently used with other loads to “chew up” excessive voltage! What goes with that?

Ohm’s Law is the source of some of the confusion, even though it merely states the reality of the relationship among voltage (E), resistance (R) and current (I). Now, Ohm’s Law is neither good nor bad; it just is. Ohm’s Law is frequently used to calculate resultant unknown voltage. For those not familiar with Ohm’s Law, it holds that a single volt will push a single amp through a resistance of one ohm, and is expressed as an equation of volts = amps x ohms (1 = 1 x 1), or E = I x R. The reader also needs to know about Watt’s Law, named after James Watt. A watt is a unit of electric power (P), and it is the calculated product of the energy (volts) and the current (amps), P = V x A. The electric usage in most homes, for example, is measured in kilowatt-hours, a function of the number of watts consumed each month.
My confusion stems from a repetitive misunderstanding about the effects of resistance on voltage. There are some instances in which a given chain of resistance does not overwhelm available voltage. In fact, they seem mutually supportive in a literal reading of Ohm’s Law, where voltage is the product of current and resistance, and an unknown voltage must increase if resistance increases, assuming constant current.

However, in most real-world applications, voltage does not vary much: in vehicles it is usually fixed at 12-13 volts, and in households it is usually fixed around 110 volts. Those quantities rarely vary in dependable circuits. Most vehicle and household circuit systems are parallel circuits.

A parallel circuit in a vehicle would have the various loads hooked up to various wires coming from the (+) battery terminal while all being simultaneously yet separately grounded to the (-) terminal via the engine, chassis or body. A series circuit would have all of the loads hooked together heads-to-tails in a daisy-chain sort of arrangement between a single connection between the (+) and (-) terminals. Unlike a parallel circuit, wherein voltage remains constant thoughout the circuit and current (amps) is divided among the various loads, in a series circuit we have been taught that voltage is divided among the loads and current remains constant. Thus, Ohm’s Law (inverted thus: I = E/R, or R = E/I) will be useful to calculate the entire current draw or the TOTAL resistance in the entire series circuit, while the voltage is divided among the loads therein. And that current draw will be the same for each load in the series circuit.
Resistances vary, however, as devices and accessories are added or subtracted from parallel circuits, dividing up the amperage present, while in a series sub-circuit, each load therein will demand its own share of the voltage present while the entire circuit is limited to 12 volts in most applications. The voltage-resistance paradox does not really present itself in parallel-circuit-only situations. Where the paradox arises is best illustrated by the resistor wire or ballast in the primary ignition circuit, where the 12 volts going into the primary windings in a coil is cut to 7 or 8 volts by the ballast or resistor wire which is connected in series ahead of the coil and points. This happens to reduce the voltage expended within the primary coil circuit to protect the points from burning. It also reduces the likely current flow through the points, which potentially causes the actual burning. Less voltage will also carry less current.

As previously stated, the multiplier effect of the secondary windings in the coil will produce more than enough higher voltage necessary to jump the air gaps mentioned while itself carrying relatively modest current as well (current and resistance in a circuit are inversely related). Well, if Ohm’s Law shows that resistance and voltage are mutually supportive how, then, is a resistance able to “cut” voltage?
The short “answer” is that Ohm’s Law more readily defines what happens in an entire coherent circuit but is less clear as to what happens within that circuit. For an entire circuit, there are available only 12 volts in an automotive application. Ohm’s Law will show what current flows for the total circuit when there is an aggregate resistance load thereon. Once that current flow and resistance load is known, it will multiply out to 12 volts. BUT—if there are two or more loads in series in that circuit, while each load will receive the calculated circuit current flow, the available voltage will be divided between/among those loads.
For example, if a 12-volt negative-ground circuit has a lamp (also negative-ground) drawing 1 amp of current, it will burn with 12 watts (volts x current) and have a load of 12 ohms’ resistance (R = E/I). Now, if a resistor of 12 ohms is put in series ahead of the lamp, then the total circuit load becomes 24 ohms, and the total current draw is reduced to ½ amp (I = E/R). Both the bulb and the resistor will each receive ½ amp of current draw at a total of 12 volts. However, there will be a voltage “drop” of 6 volts at the resistor, leaving only 6 volts “available” for the bulb itself. The bulb burns half as bright (6 watts) because the current has been cut to ½ amp on a 12-volt circuit, but it also receives only 6 working volts to chew up its 1-amp load, with the same 6-watt result in either case!
Also, the apparent paradox is resolved because the available “reserve” voltage in the secondary circuit from the coil is always more than enough to overcome whatever resistances are created by the distributor, the plug wires and the plugs themselves. In other words, the plugs fire in spite of the resistance, not because of it, but the resistance does cut the excess current, which is not needed for the spark to ignite the gasoline.
Confusing? It is for me, but I try to keep it straight by remembering that series circuits are voltage dividers, with each component therein getting the same current, while parallel circuits are current dividers, with each component therein getting the same voltage.
It is difficult to apply Ohm’s Law to each component within a series circuit, so it may be left alone once the total circuit characteristics are determined. However, a series resistor can help to reduce available voltage (and current) where necessary therein without reducing total circuit voltage! If the current is cut down by the available resistance, then it will require less voltage to move that current, so the voltage seems to drop as well, though it is not directly affected by the resistance.

Generic Management 101 (My palindrome)

[A palindrome is a word or phrase that reads the same, backward or forward, like "RADAR."]


A BMW; a rake--

EGAD! A geek!

A raw MBA!

TORQUE

(Sent as an e-mail in March, 2003.)

I was always troubled by my attraction to fast cars as somehow a confession of sexual inadequacy.  I read that somewhere in some self-help or wimmin's magazine written by some Birkenstock-wearing weenie who drove an automatic Ford Escort or some such, probably while munching sunflower seeds and watching "Oprah" regularly. 

Having materially participated in the design and (re-)engineering and rebuilding of my '66 Pontiac GTO (since 1986, when I took it off the road), I may be able to point to that in lieu of my general disregard for my own physical prowess.  I am not in very good shape these days, being too fat and lazy, but my car is FAST!  With a much more potent 5-speed in place of the original 4-speed, I can now have a "granny" first gear and a stupendous high-speed "Positraction" final drive of 2.93:1, which calcs out to about 150 mph top end (not that I have the balls to find out).  I used to be able to do all that, but I have lost both my hair and my nerve over the years. 

The engine has been replaced/rebuilt several times, it now being a 400c.i. (orig. 389 c.i.) with the original 3-deuce intake, slightly “fatter” (than stock) cam and roller rockers, cast-iron semi-headers and low-restriction exhaust system.  It runs nicely around town on 93-oct. unleaded, but it will leap like a scalded dog when stomped.  I have wrung out 3d gear, but I have no nerve to see the limit in 4th or 5th. 

It will do almost 60 in first! 

When the clutch is dumped and the accelerator is stomped, the front end of the car arches up and twists simultaneously against the torque of the engine, the clutch disk slamming against the flywheel.  The noise is unbelievably loud, with all three carbs sucking deep, their reptilian hissing mixed with the honking wail of the engine.  The noise obliterates one's thinking.  One is literally slammed into the back of the seat, unable to lean forward at all, barely able to peer over the front edge of the hood.  The compressed vitreous humor squeezes the available retinal field of view to a pinpoint, probably centered on the optic nerve end. With proper feathering, the tires will slip very little, they having been converted from the original bias-type tall, skinny "bicycle" tires to a low-profile, fat radial that is mounted on a repro Rally Type I wheel that is an inch larger in diameter (15") and inch wider (7") than the stock originals.  With a re-engineered suspension that uses offset upper control-arm shafts that pull the top of the wheel in toward the engine to get proper camber for the Firebird spindles now installed, the car corners very flat and sits about 3" lower than stock, using 1-1/2" sway bars front and rear.  All of this is backed up with massive disc brakes up front and the stock drums still in back.  GTO's didn't have disc brakes until 1967. 

All of this ensures that my car will do what the original GTO's would not: corner and stop.  The originals were great for straight-line acceleration, but way too many would try to straighten out curves and climb trees.  That is why there are fewer of them left, and a lot of counterfeits built from LeManses and Tempests abound.  The upholstery in the passenger seat is puckered, however, from the abject fear of the passengers.  It is a frightening car to ride in, despite the 5-point racing harnesses I added.  The console holds a pint of gin, "church-key" and bottle of Tabasco very nicely.  My college roommate inspired that rather proper use of the console!

  Nevertheless, the car lives up to its original acronym: GTO--gas, tires and oil--because it burns all three!    So!  Go ahead and color me "inadequate."  I do have an automatic in my truck, however.  No need to shift gears when there's no one to impress with burnouts!

Global warming?  I'm doing my best to contribute!

Be Prepared

(This piece was written in October of 2006 for a childhood friend with whom I had been in the Boy Scouts.)

BE PREPARED

Those of us in the front lines of male Baby Boomers may well remember our days as budding adolescents, starting around age 11 or 12 concurrent with graduation from the Cub Scouts to the Boy Scouts. By then, I was already somewhat aware of (and stunned by) human origins by “sexual congress,” so I was quite ready for the evil, wonderful ways of the Boy Scouts. There was much more to learn.
I was a member of Troop 141 in Roanoke Rapids, NC, a small industrial cotton- and paper-mill city. Our sponsor was the cotton mill up on the hill above our cinder-block Scout building. More of my close friends were also in the Troop, and the highlight of our scouting experiences were the 8 or 10 camping trips we took each year, winter or summer, supervised by our two long-suffering but quite tolerant Scoutmasters, a retired cotton-mill worker and a city police sergeant, who had also been my Cubmaster.
A few years ago, in a pathetic fit of would-be paternal bonding, the Scout movement decided to include fathers in their sons’ camping adventures, encouraging them to come along and be a “pal” to their sons. One of my friends was complaining about being unable to get together with me on a given weekend as he had to go on a camping trip with his son. I implored him to leave the poor boy alone and let him go on the camping trip without a parental unit on hand to kill the joy. I told him I would have been absolutely mortified if my father had been along on any of my Scout camping trips which, back in the 1950’s, were an opportunity to smoke cigars, throw eggs at cars, tip cows, roll yards with toilet paper (preferably in the rain), throw cans of beans in campfires (for an explosive “event”—never mind the shrapnel) and generally get away with bloody murder while no one was watching. Today’s self-appointed moral authorities are surely to be outraged that such shenanigans happened in the august Boy Scouts, of all places, but they did. I was a witness to history. Had my father been present, it would have been a much more boring time, indeed.
Our Scoutmasters were tolerant in the sense that they did not act like Gestapo, interrogating us about certain “events” and administering punishments, but it was understood that no one was to tempt fate by doing all manner of prohibited conduct in their presences. No point in rubbing it in their faces. I think that both men are now dead, but I honor their memories and will love each of them until I die, even though one could never get my name right. Like most Scouting volunteers, they freely gave of their spare time and efforts without any compensation other than maybe the certainty that they were good role models for each of us and maybe the notion that we were absolutely devoted to them. Having also worked for the Boy Scouts later on, I know something about the multiple differences between the unpaid volunteers and the “pros,” which are considerable.
Anyway, we were an all-southern-white, mostly Christian bunch of boys. We did not know diddly-squat about “diversity.” That word probably didn’t even exist back when I was in the Boy Scouts. We also did not obsess about homosexuals or atheists among our ranks; though we knew of some and made fun of them, we were certainly not fearful of them. It was never mentioned, and the thought that some kids might have been excluded from our tawdry ranks because of somebody else’s decree from on high sounds really stupid. Our rag-tag group was perfectly capable of making anyone’s life miserable by ourselves. I daresay the obnoxious prohibition recently declared by the Boy Scout organization against such folks seems a recent phenomenon contrived by those predatory weenies in short pants and knee socks in high places, those despicable folks who constitute the “pros” referenced earlier, for whom I worked in the Summer of 1970 as a Scout camp waterfront director in New York state.
But, I digress. There are too many wonderful stories to remember from my own Scouting days, and the monstrous wildfire is among them. I mentioned earlier that smoking cigars was one of our favored pastimes. We also bought and consumed many packs of cigarettes as well. The notion of 13-year-olds smoking is abhorrent now, but that is what we did (most of us do not smoke today). Anyway, we were on a camping adventure one weekend and were to set up our army-surplus tents in a field covered in broomsedge, with “alleys” mowed through. Those tents seemed to date from World War II, and they were somewhat water-proofed with a dried, oily residue.
That fair spring Friday afternoon, we fought a huge wind blowing across the field as we struggled to tie down our flapping tents. We had gradually gotten them under control and set up, when all of a sudden, three or four boys exploded from their tent and then, almost simultaneously, the tent exploded in fire! All of us were transfixed as we watched the tent dissolve to ash almost immediately, but we were unprepared for what happened next, as the adjacent broomsedge caught fire, too, and the wind whipped it into a screaming freight-train of pure fire, racing across the field away from our tents (thankfully) and toward some houses in the distance! I have never seen anything so frightening move so quickly.

It took perhaps 30 seconds for the fire to race across at least 100 yards of distance, and it would have likely eaten those houses but for a paved road between them and the field on fire. The wind was so strong there were no fires caught on the sides, and the fire “engine” gave out of gas at the road. Whew!
Needless to say, there was much chagrin and second-guessing about what we had witnessed. It seems that the boys within the tent had lit up some cigarettes, and something therein had caught on fire. The rest is well-known. I suppose we were all lucky that no one got hurt and nothing got destroyed but the old tent and a couple of sleeping bags and some clothes, but I would not trade that fabulous memory for anything.
I cannot finish my recollections without remembrance of “Aunt Creasy” and “Mary Jane Hockaday.” Our Troop’s preferred campsite about 8 miles from town was a wooded area down behind a hunting cabin owned by the family of one of our Troop members. We probably went there 5 or 6 times a year. One of the benefits of longer-term membership in the Troop was the “matriculation” from camping novice to seasoned elder. Aunt Creasy’s rundown shack was further down in a field behind our wooded campsite. The first time I had to go into it was terrifying. I was not even 12 years old yet, and I almost froze to death that winter weekend (or so it seemed) because I did not have a proper sleeping bag, only a borrowed woolen bag-liner, and it was COLD!

Aunt Creasy was reputed to have been a very old former black slave who had lived in the shack prior to her death. The shack was OBVIOUSLY haunted by her restless ghost! Each of us novices was tasked one night to fetch a large stick on the floor inside the shack. There was an old well out in front of the shack, and it had been rigged by one of the older Scouts in the Troop with some sort of remote noisemaker that could be actuated by pulling on a wire from a distance. As I passed the old well, a moaning sound emitted from it, and I was almost paralyzed with pure unadulterated fear. I could barely stumble up to the shack and go into its dark recesses with only a weakening flashlight beam for guidance.
I cautiously entered the shack and pushed on the front door which was barely hanging on one hinge. I knew I could not turn back to certain derisive ridicule and probably the inevitable paddling that the older kids enjoyed administering to the younger ones. (Yes, corporal punishment was frequently administered.) Trash was strewn across the floor everywhere, and the old-shack smell of wood smoke and stale grease and garbage was almost nauseating. I pushed into another room and saw, by the dim glow of my flashlight, the big stick to be retrieved.
As I bent over to pick up the stick, a huge older Scout jumped out from behind a door yelling, grabbed me roughly and scared the living you-know-what out of me! I almost peed in my pants. I swear. I have often wondered, however, if he, too, was somewhat scared, listening to the well moan and waiting for some naïve Tenderfoot to come along looking for the stick. I know, when I later assumed the same role, I was apprehensive about being in that “haunted” shack by myself.

The 10-foot-long sunken grave of Mary Jane Hockaday was across a dirt road from the shack of Aunt Creasy in some woods. We knew her name because it was on the tombstone at the head of the grave. She had died a long time earlier according to the dates also on the stone. It was common practice to tell campfire stories about Mary Jane Hockaday, the monstrous, evil woman 9 feet tall who had gone to an early grave after eating children and dying, etc. It was all totally believable, especially by the solitary glow of a campfire. Again, the task was to retrieve a big stick on the grave, and at the moment of retrieval, an older Scout would jump out from behind a big tree adjacent and grab the hapless novice. It is a wonder there were no heart attacks on those camping trips!
I had to experience the terrifying gauntlets of both Aunt Creasy and Mary Jane Hockaday as a novice Boy Scout, all without the assistance of my father, who would surely have been worthless under the circumstances. It is probably good that he never had to apologize for my terror or cowardice. I am not sure he could have handled it.

Mississippi Cool

(This piece ran in the Richmond (Va.) Style Weekly as the "Back Page" editorial July 13, 2005.)

MISSISSIPPI COOL

In August of 1964, just before I turned eighteen years old, three bodies were found buried in an earthen dam near Philadelphia, Mississippi, after their disappearance the previous June. Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, two guys from New York, were down south “agitating” by registering blacks to vote in Neshoba County. They, along with a local man, James Chaney, were apparently murdered by some members of the Ku Klux Klan who did not take kindly to the notion of blacks exercising the civil right to vote, nor those “stirring things up.”

No one was ever prosecuted under Mississippi law for their killings until last week. A federal jury had deadlocked in 1967 in the case against Edgar Ray Killen, “a former Ku Klux Klansman … part-time preacher and sawmill operator” (according to recent AP reports) but finally the 80-year-old Killen, in a wheelchair and with an oxygen tube up his nose, was convicted in state court of lesser charges of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years on each charge, consecutive, which amounts to a life sentence.

Killen’s misfortune was to have outlived most of the other suspects. Many folks celebrated Killen’s convictions last week, but they were based, not upon live testimony but mostly upon read statements of decedents that were admittedly not subject to cross-examination by his lawyers. One has to be concerned about the due-process implications of those convictions, but such concerns will be muted in the clamor of celebration. The horrific case is given credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

At the time of their deaths, I was one of those callow white southerners who wondered what the fuss was all about. Most FBI agents and its director, J. Edgar Hoover, were also openly indifferent to the plight of civil rights workers in the South. One wonders if he, too, did not feel they got what they were “asking for.” The movie, “Mississippi Burning” purports to credit FBI agents for diligent investigation and prosecution of early civil rights offenses, but it is a lie. Like myself at the time, the FBI and Hoover didn’t give a damn.

A lot of southern politicians have rankled under the South-focused enforcements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act and have railed against them over the years. Even recently, the Mississippi Senators Thad Cochran and former Majority Leader Trent Lott refused to support an anti-lynching resolution that passed the US Senate. (Hang ‘em high—still.) However, those relatively modest legal changes were really good for the South and all of us inhabitants. We white folks in the South owe a lot of our current freedoms to the memories of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, and many others who died for our civil liberties (but not our sins).

During the 2004 presidential campaign, for some reason I was reminded of something that I had forgotten: the underlying basis for my strong dislike of Ronald Reagan, which I have felt all these years since he started his first campaign for President in the summer of 1980. I have found myself in a persistent lonely position. My first memories of Ronald Reagan were pleasant ones from his hosting of the “GE Theater” and of “Death Valley Days” on TV. I could easily have become a Reagan supporter like so many others drawn to his cheery, avuncular personality. After the dour, unfortunate presidency of Jimmy Carter, many voters were ready to kick him out of the White House and install the ever-optimistic Reagan. The fact that he is now dead further protects his popular legacy.

Some Republicans have been very adept at exploiting the underlying residual fears and resentments of many white Southerners regarding the true emancipation of blacks. The repugnant inactions of Senators Cochran and Lott are but one example. Democrats have piously resisted, for the most part, such exploitation, but many blacks feel “tokenized” by the Democratic Party to this day. Ronald Reagan was one of those politicians who did not worry himself much about residual memories and images. He soundly defeated Southerner Jimmy Carter in the South in 1980.

The thing that sealed my hostility toward Reagan was his early trip to Philadelphia, Mississippi in the summer of 1980 to basically raise Hell about the popular legal fiction of “states’ rights,” a red-meat issue for white Southerners. Reagan (and his handlers) had to know what the specific history of Philadelphia was, and I believe that is specifically why they went there, to assure white voters with a wink and a nod (Reagan’s famous signals) that he “understood.” What business would a former California governor otherwise have in a backwater like Philadelphia, Mississippi, except to say, “I’m one of you”?

Somehow I was reminded of all this 24 years later. I remembered that a US presidential candidate was openly sly and indifferent to the murderous horror of what he was seemingly endorsing. Mean, unambiguous messages were being sent, but the animosity toward Jimmy Carter was so intense, no one I knew cared. But I never really forgot how I felt about Reagan, to the point of nausea.

Edgar Ray Killen will enter the penitentiary, probably never to come out, except in a body-bag. We should remember that Ronald Reagan proved in the summer of 1980 that “politics ain’t bean-bag,” as his political nemesis Tip O’Neill supposedly said. Ronald Reagan proved that winning is everything, and that being president means never having to say you’re sorry.


POSTSCRIPT, 2007: I recall that W. C. Fields's tombstone epitaph supposedly reads:
"All in all, I'd rather be in Philadelphia." I think he was not referring to Mississippi.