OZYMANDIAS

(The following is the text of an e-mail that was sent March 21, 2008 to Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern, a former public-school teacher, whose anti-homosexual rant was plastered on "YouTube" and provoked this missive.)

Dear Ms. Kern:

I listened to (at least a portion of) what was represented as your speech about the creeping "homosexual agenda" that you allege will destroy our nation because of its disregard for what you cite as "God's Word."
You don't reveal where "God's Word" is cited, presumably in the Bible, presumably because you consider yourself a believing Christian.

You further say that "studies show" that no society that "totally embraces" homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades.
You do not specifically attribute the "studies" to which you refer. You don't define what you mean by "total embrace."

Citing your experience as a public-school teacher, you assert that one of the main objectives of the "homosexual agenda" is to "recruit" children as young as 2 years old into the movement. You obviously imply that the point is to convert those children into becoming homosexuals, which disregards most of the known scientific information that homosexuality is not a "learned" attribute, although tolerance and respect for homosexuals' liberty is.

You equate homosexuality with cancer and terrorism and Islam. I am sure Muslims are glad to know your real attitude about their religion. Like many self-annointed pious Pharisee/Christians, I am sure your disdain for non-Christian religion allows you to feel superior. Whatever heaven you wind up in after death I hope I am not there with you. I would hate to have to spend eternity with a bigot like I think you are.

You alternate in that part that I heard between what is the nature of your opinion to what you "know" to be "fact." You claim to not be "anti-homosexual," but you asserted that merely making this public statement puts your life or health "in jeopardy," as if the homo's will put out a contract on you or something similar.

I think you are a liar.

I think you are a bigot.

I think you know that you are lying and are a bigot.

I think you don't care.

But, it makes no difference anyway. You made the statement, and you were apparently cheered by some of your Republican colleagues for doing so. That says a lot more about you and your Republican colleagues than you can possibly imagine, and it ain't pretty, either.

I doubt, however, that you care what the opinions of people like me are, but you should know that your comments have been widely disseminated as far away as Virginia, at least.

How does it feel to be so (in)famous for such remarks? I wonder.
How do you sleep with yourself at night? How does any husband or girlfriend you might have?

I am also really curious as to how so many professed Christians can be so hateful as you are. I am curious as to how you can seize on something you may (or may not) have actually read in the Bible somewhere and then deem yourself one of the earthly enforcers of what you claim to be "God's Word," making life as difficult and as unhappy for homosexuals and their families as you possibly can while wrapping yourself in the American flag, grasping the Bible in your paw, and piously declaring that you are not a homophobic bigot. That is hubris worthy of Bill Clinton or Eliot Spitzer.

Thank goodness you are no longer corrupting the fertile minds of public-school children as their warped, bigoted teacher, seemingly spreading hate and lies misrepresented as "fact" like the "facts" you cite without attribution.

You are a "piece of work," Ms. Kern, as some folks hereabouts say.

You really are.

You may be fretting about which societies get to last more than a "few decades," so I presume you mean that if America cracks down on the "queers," then we will last a long time. I think that is what you mean. Actually, I'd rather be dead than to have to honor you as one of our leaders.

Take a look at the poem, "Ozymandias" by Percy Bysshe Shelley (see below) given that you are so concerned about societal survival. If you can even read anything other than what some half-wit Bible-thumper regurgitates to you, you may find it instructive.

Ozymandias

By Percy Bysshe Shelley

	I met a traveller from an antique land,
	Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
	Stand in the desart....Near them, on the sand,
	Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
5	And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
	Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
	Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
	The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
	And on the pedestal, these words appear:
	My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
	Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
	Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
	Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
	The lone and level sands stretch far away."

ASP-HOLES

… and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp….

--Isaiah 11:7-8 (KJV).

(The following story has been slightly fictionalized to protect the guilty parties, but it is based on real events long ago.)

This story is not for the faint of heart nor for the intolerantly devout. There were three teenaged boys whose parents allowed them to sit together in church so long as they attended church. That was the ultimate goal as far as the parents were concerned. So, too, was it the objective for those determined, if not devout, young men. It fed their comradeship, even unto miserable, shared conditions.

Paying attention to the Bible readings and sermons was a struggle for a lot of folks who despised those who did not attend a church but who were not particularly attentive or engaged themselves therein. Those three teenagers were typical of their kind. While the preacher was intoning eloquently about this or that spiritual aspect, these young men’s’ minds were usually focused like laser beams on pussy or cars. Life for teenagers was fairly simple back then. What? You say it is not so different today? OK. It is good that there are certain constants in this crazy world.

So as most are sort of nodding off during the run-up to the sermon, which usually involved a Bible reading first, upon which the subsequent sermon would be based, the preacher reads the above verse from Isaiah, Chapter 11. That was the beginning of the end of the church comradeship.

One of the teens, in particular, was a very funny, very naughty, very easily amused young man. He shall be called by the name of “Tom” here, not his real name, however. Tom was a prankster and a joker. He was also very smart, but he was not particularly restrained in his exuberant reactions to stimuli.

One of the most widely shared disorders among humans in America is a case of what a friend calls the “church giggles.” You know what that is. That is when something normally not very funny happens to strike a common funnybone among two or more persons in church or some other inappropriate place, forcing the suffering persons to get to giggling almost uncontrollably over basically nothing. Soon the inappropriateness of the giggles themselves becomes the amusement, forcing even harder giggling, all by now beyond the control of the afflicted persons. Most all of us have suffered the affliction at one time or another.

That is what happened to Tom and his comrades.

When the preacher read the verse about the sucking child playing in the hole of the asp (what in the world was he sucking on, the boys also wondered?), Tom got to giggling and muttering about “asp-holes.” That is when the other two comrades became infected, and they all had their hands clamped firmly over their mouths while their backs and shoulders heaved rapidly in unison at the absurdity of the presence of “asp-holes” in the Bible, especially children playing in them! Adjacent worshippers were appalled.

WHEREUPON, at that very moment, there was yet another occurrence that drove the whole scene over the cliff like “Thelma and Louise.”

Tom farted. Loudly. In church.

It resonated like a foghorn against the wooden bench.

The dam broke. Whole villages were washed away, as was the comradeship.

The comrades could no longer restrain themselves, and as Tom kept repeating (loudly, by now) “Asp-holes! Asp-holes!” between guffaws, he was joined therein by open laughing from his weeping comrades.

That was the end. The parents of each boy were not amused. They were shamed and embarrassed. They probably had no idea what had started it all because they were probably not as attentive to the Bible reading as were the boys.

No matter. Thereafter each boy had to sit with his respective family under the tight, watchful eyes of the parents. Families worshipping together. Just like a Norman Rockwell painting. Or a George Lincoln Rockwell painting, depending on one’s point of view. Hitler Youth, come to Amerika.

No more “asp-holes.” Most likely the preacher, now deceased, never used that Bible verse again. The parents are now all dead, too. The comrades, long since separated by time and distance, have lost track of each other and are approaching their Social Security years. But they were tight as ticks once, and they were easily amused.

DEVOTEDLY

(The following was written in furtherance of recording a memory I have discussed several times recently.)

One of my teen years’ pastimes I fondly remember may give some devout patriots pause. My personal road to Hell is surely paved with all the spitballs I threw at the ubiquitous print of the unfinished Gilbert Stuart portrait of The Father of Our Country that hung in most every public-school classroom back in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

During mandatory morning religious devotionals.

I am talking about pre-Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

We had ‘em. Every morning, the select Brown-Noser of the Day would be invited to the Principal’s Office at my North Carolina high school, and before regular classes began at 9:00 AM he or she would read aloud over the school-wide intercom system the select religious message for us unwashed heathens, inclusive of Bible reading and prayer in the name of Jesus, Amen. I used to wonder what the few Jewish kids in our school thought about all that, but no one ever said anything, so neither did I. I now regret that, but that is all another story. I was never chosen. Brown-nosing came hard for me.

While my more devout brethren and "sistren" in my homeroom class would bow their heads in earnest prayer, I would be sizing up the ballistic distance to ol’ George, hanging on a nail over the blackboard across the room. At the appropriate moment (usually determined by the probable glue-like stickiness of the wad of notebook paper I was rolling around in my mouth), I would remove said sticky wad and hurl it across the room at George, then put my head down quickly in feigned prayer lest the teacher look up quickly at the gratifying sound of said hurled spitball loudly smacking the glass overlying the countenance of George and catch me admiring my work.

Of course, at such an obvious and well-known sound, most all of the students would simultaneously look up (so it was important that I look up, too, so as not to unduly reveal my guilt by being the only student whose head was still bowed) and observe the portrait of George rocking back and forth on its single nail by which it hung with its wire stretched across the back, the offending wad of slobber-saturated notebook paper stuck firmly to the glass over George’s face like some horrible three-dimensional wart erupting from the sainted face of the Father of Our Country.

Jesus wept. Or laughed.

The late stand-up comedian “Brother Dave” Gardner used to ask, quite reasonably I thought, “Do you think the Washington Monument looks anything like George?” Well, the offending spitball was about the same color as the stone in the Washington Monument, but that was as far as any resemblance would go. I was fairly good at this pastime, and Jesus must have forgiven me, because I kept getting away with it again and again until ….

I had started to branch out and take more risks, thanks to my rising successes. I was giving George the customary “facelift” in other classes as well, usually while the teacher therein had his or her back turned to us students while writing on the blackboard. I made the mistake one day of firing a nice, huge, sticky wad of notebook paper at George in Algebra class, and the teacher turned around to see me just as my arm was extended past my face directly toward George, and the simultaneous “smack” against George’s glass drilled the quiet of the moment. He had me dead in his sights! This teacher was regarded as one of the more sophisticated faculty members, and he was diabolical in his punishment of choice: I had to come back to his room after school and perform 100 pushups on the floor!

I hated pushups! I hated them almost as bad as windsprints, many of which I was required to do by the football coach who hated my guts. The feeling was mutual. The football coach was also my Presbyterian Sunday School teacher, and his patience had been tried many times by my suggestions that predestination meant that I could do anything I wanted since my fate (doomed vs. saved) was already sealed, according to his teachings. He did not approve of my irrefutable logic!

I did not want to do 10 pushups, let alone 100! But I did them, for I did not want to learn what the diabolical alternative might be. It was probably to my advantage that I was a good Algebra student, but that did not give me a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. I did every one of those stinking, miserable pushups.

Following my sweaty penance, I gave up providing George his warts. It was time for others to succeed to my coveted mantle.

______________________________

SOOWEE'S NEW "THEORY" OF GRAVITY

(See 4/11/16)

My new "theory" of gravity (really a mere hypothesis or pretentious guess) purports to unify the four fundamental sub-atomic forces, three of which (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force) have already been "unified" as different manifestations of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I realize that my new "theory" may have already been considered and discarded within the scientific community, but I have never read about it, so here goes:

I believe it is correct to say that it is generally believed among the scientific community that gravity behaves in a manner consistent with quantum particle behavior, in that it expresses both particle and wave characteristics. I believe it is also correct to say that it is generally believed that gravity is a very weak force overall, but very persistent, traveling long distances, which seems contradicting. I presume (fatuously?) there are devices which can measure differentiated gravitational forces.

In Technology Review, Vol. 111, No. 3 (May/June, 2008), Nate Nickerson's article on the last page about particle physics 69 years ago jogged my thinking. Therein he quotes Phillip M. Morse, further citing some research by a Japanese physicist Yukawa differentiating the type of "non-electric" yet radioactive particle or wave given off when neutrons are transformed into protons, presumably by collision.

I had always thought that any radiation was within the measurable spectrum of electromagnetism, just as visible light is within that spectrum. The only difference is that radiation is at a much higher frequency/shorter wavelength than radio waves or light.

Suppose that gravity is also in that same spectrum, but at a frequency so high (or so low?) and wavelength so short (or long?) that it cannot be measured with existing instruments. That is pure speculation on my part, but I have never seen that supposition addressed or dismissed in the few scientific writings that I have read. Suppose that gravity is at one "end," or near the "end" of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is probably and actually infinite, as likely is the universe. It could well be at the practical "end" since perhaps no other force or phenomenon in nature is to be found "above" or "below" it.

I posit the possibility that gravity is at the ultra-low end of the spectrum rather than the ultra-high end of the spectrum because its weak effects are realized over long distances consistent with a long wave of very short amplitude.

Perhaps this could be tested like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity during a total eclipse of the Sun, as follows: as Einstein's Theory predicted, we know that gravity will bend known electromagnetic waves (like light). If, in fact, gravity is an electromagnetic wave itself, then perhaps gravity can bend gravity. If so, could the Moon's gravity bend the Sun's gravity in such a way that, during a total eclipse, that portion of the Sun's gravity bending around the Moon would be focused like a lens on some part of the Earth while the Moon would be inhibiting a portion of the Sun's gravity with its own mass, such that a differential in measured solar gravity could be observed in the shaded area of the eclipse? Of course, one must exclude the force of the Moon's own gravity thereabout. Would the alignment of the Sun and the Moon create a greater measurable gravity there? I don't know.

I don't know if any of this has ever been considered or if there has ever been an attempt to measure it, but it did occur to me while reading Nickerson's article, so I thought I should write it down while I was thinking of it.

Bear Stearns/Santa Claus

(The following is taken from an e-mail to a law school classmate who was published in the Wall Street Journal in March of 2008 on the subject of the federal government's bailout of the Bear Stearns investment firm. Most of the profanity has been stripped.)

I have been thinking about [the Bear Stearns bailout] since I learned of it down in the Cayman Islands. I heard that raving twit, [US Treasury Secretary] Henry Paulson, stammering and stuttering his explanation of why it made sense to do the bailout. What a nincompoop!

No, actually, we the audience are the nincompoops because we nod our heads and suck this stuff up.

How can ANYBODY be surprised (though appalled) that this is happening?? Corporate welfare! Bidness as usual! Dubious has had someone to sweep in and clean up his messes his whole life, so why not share the wealth, esp. at taxpayer expense?

Paulson should have had the guts to just tell all the naysayers to go have sex with themselves. It would have made more sense, and it would certainly been in keeping with the Vice-President's example vis-a-vis Sen. Leahy. Besides, what difference could it have possibly made?

Paulson said US "fundamentals" remain sound. Not one pseudo-journalist bothered to ask him what "fundamentals" meant. They all just regurgitate this nonsense verbatim as if it SHOULD make sense to the cognoscenti. (Only hopeless idiots like me need ask.)

Amazing. As a passenger on the plane said yesterday when I was ranting and raving about that, what in the world would lead me to expect otherwise???

I wish Hillary and Obama would weigh in on this stuff. I would threaten to revoke the guarantee the very first thing I do if elected Prez!

I finally figured out that the reason the Boooosh Admin. approved the Bear Stearns bailout is because there are no "nigras" or "spics" in high places over there who might just piss the money away on drugs and booze or "wims" for their personal vehicles.

We have truly gotten the govt. we deserve.

The prez candidates seem to be willing to say almost nothing of consequence during the entire campaign. It does not matter, though, because Mencken's "booboisee" just don't seem to notice or care. Most voters respond to how they "feel" about a candidate, which is just as well, since their brains are overloaded with "American Idol(t)" and "Survivor" and critical thinking is a lost art.

Since "feeling" is so important, I would like to hook their genitals up to an electric socket so they could "feel" even better! As Bill Maher said the other night in his "New Rules," that politicians need to quit saying that Americans are not as dumb as they are presumed to be, well, yes they are!!! Most Americans are dumb as you-know-what!!!

OIL,, That Is--Texas Tea!

(The following was a recent e-mail to a self-described conservative friend who thinks the "liberals" have screwed up the economy, but that oil prices have had very little overall effect--so far.)

When Bush was running for Prez in 2000, oil was $31 per barrel. During the campaign, he was critical of the failure of the Clinton Administration to formulate an energy policy.

Oil closed March 5 [2008] at $104+ per barrel.
That is an increase of over 300% from 2000.

[Oil closed over $135/bbl. May 21.]

The Urban Consumer Price Index for November, 2000 was 174.1 (1982-84 = 100).

The Urban Consumer Price Index for January, 2008 was 211.08.

That is an increase of about 21.3% from 2000, inclusive of the oil cost increase.

Oil prices held relatively steady from 1994-1999 around $20 per barrel then went up, then back down in 2002 to about $25 per barrel.

In early 2004, oil prices spiked sharply upward to over $70 per barrel, then sagged briefly to $52 per barrel in mid-2007, then they have spiked again in steady fashion, roughly doubling in less than one year to current times (Spring, 2008--See graphs in Wikipedia.)

This price pattern does not make any sense to me. It seems to defy the usual supply/demand analysis. It appears to be deliberate price manipulation in defiance of market forces. Practically all of the oil companies have posted record profits during the past year despite the substantial increase in their costs.

The Bush Administration's Dept. of Justice has almost totally ignored antitrust enforcement.

The huge doubling of oil prices in less than one year is a radical price increase in a very broadly established commodity.

Prepare for another round of "stag-flation" within the next 2 years.


The events of 1974-79 have little or nothing to do with the current economic situation OTHER THAN to illustrate the power of a spike in oil prices vis-a-vis the rest of the economy, manifested as "stag-flation" which helped bring down Jimmy Carter's Administration (along with the hostage crisis).

What is relevant, I think, is the sudden SPIKE in oil prices during the past 11 months, from ca. $52/bbl. to over $108/bbl. now, 2008. I believe that RATE of increase (over such a short time period) cannot be readily absorbed into the overall economy without trauma, and it will, I think, manifest itself WITHIN THE NEXT TWO YEARS as higher prices across the board (unavoidable inflation), unemployment or substandard employment, and stagnant net income (working-class wages) the wage scales being effectively capped by higher fuel costs incurred by employers.

The Fed will raise interest rates again trying to control the impossible-to-control inflation, and they will destroy jobs and businesses in the process, YET AGAIN, just like Paul Volcker did in the late 1970's. I know this happened because I saw several of my acquaintances and clients NEEDLESSLY get put out of business and/or unemployed because of utterly counterproductive higher interest rates set by unelected banker guys with 6-figure incomes and steady jobs in Washington. It is going to happen again in about 2 years. Mark my words.

If a Dem is elected Prez this year, he/she will take the blame for all that, and the Re-Pubes will re-capture the White House again in 2012, and they will hold it for another 30-40 years thereafter!! Brilliant!!

It is well to recall that Paul Volcker blamed Jimmy Carter's relatively modest deficits at the time for the stag-flation, despite the FACT that Ron-Old Ray-Gun's later deficits were much bigger, yet by then (early/mid-1980's) the oil price spikes had been folded into the economy, and the overall CPI inflation rate was much more modest. In my not-so-humble opinion, Volcker was a whored-out Re-Pube liar. I never heard him admit to the role of the oil-price spikes of the early/mid 1970's in creating the stag-flation of the later '70's.

Gas was about 34c/gal. when I moved from Lexington, Va. to Orange, Va. in 1973 and remained fairly steady that next year, to mid-1974. It was at least $0.65/gal. within 2 years thereafter and went to $1.50/gal. by Reagan's election in 1980. That is a 500% rise in gas costs, probably reflecting the rise in oil costs from 1974-80. The CPI (see below) rose 86.9% from 1973-1980. The CPI overall increased annually throughout the Carter Admin. but the annual % increase started declining in 1980 BEFORE Reagan became Prez, and continued its decline into 1981, for which Jimmy Carter ought to get credit. Unfortunately for him, it still rose about 26% from 1978-80. I don't know why the jump was so big from 1974-77 when Gerald Ford was Prez

The ratio of 500% to 86.9% = 5.75. I am not sure if that signifies anything OTHER THAN to say that oil rose almost 6 times faster than did the CPI.

If oil rises 500% from its 2000 cost, that is $31 x 5 = $155/bbl.
(Oil fell to about $104.50 on 3/19/08.)

HOWEVER, it may well be that the RATE of increase over time is more important than the overall increase, i.e., the doubling within less than a year. The jump from $52 to $108 during the past 11 mos. is troubling to me. I don't recall oil prices jumping that much in such a short time back in the 1970's.


CONSUMER PRICE INDEX--1962-1983/1983 = 100:

JULY, 1973 = 44.2
JULY, 1974 = 49.3
JULY, 1977 = 60.8
JULY, 1978 = 65.5
JULY, 1980 = 82.6
JULY, 1981 = 91.5
JULY, 1982 = 97.5
JULY, 1983 = 99.8

1973-74 = +11.5% = 1 YR.
1973-77 = +37.6% = 4 YRS. = 9.4%/YR.
1977-80 = +35.9% = 3 YRS. = 11.97%/YR.
1978-80 = +26.1% = 2 YRS. = 13%/YR.
1980-82 = +15.3% = 2 YRS. = 7.7%/YR.
1981-82 = +06.6% = 1 YR.
1981-83 = +09.1% = 2 YRS. = 4%/YR.

1973-80 = +86.9%
1974-80 = +67.5%

1962-01-01 30.000
1962-02-01 30.100
1962-03-01 30.200
1962-04-01 30.200
1962-05-01 30.200
1962-06-01 30.200
1962-07-01 30.200
1962-08-01 30.300
1962-09-01 30.400
1962-10-01 30.400
1962-11-01 30.400
1962-12-01 30.400
1963-01-01 30.400
1963-02-01 30.500
1963-03-01 30.500
1963-04-01 30.500
1963-05-01 30.500
1963-06-01 30.600
1963-07-01 30.700
1963-08-01 30.800
1963-09-01 30.700
1963-10-01 30.800
1963-11-01 30.800
1963-12-01 30.900
1964-01-01 30.900
1964-02-01 30.900
1964-03-01 30.900
1964-04-01 31.000
1964-05-01 31.000
1964-06-01 31.000
1964-07-01 31.000
1964-08-01 31.100
1964-09-01 31.100
1964-10-01 31.100
1964-11-01 31.200
1964-12-01 31.300
1965-01-01 31.300
1965-02-01 31.300
1965-03-01 31.300
1965-04-01 31.400
1965-05-01 31.500
1965-06-01 31.600
1965-07-01 31.600
1965-08-01 31.600
1965-09-01 31.600
1965-10-01 31.700
1965-11-01 31.800
1965-12-01 31.900
1966-01-01 31.900
1966-02-01 32.100
1966-03-01 32.200
1966-04-01 32.300
1966-05-01 32.400
1966-06-01 32.400
1966-07-01 32.500
1966-08-01 32.700
1966-09-01 32.800
1966-10-01 32.900
1966-11-01 32.900
1966-12-01 32.900
1967-01-01 32.900
1967-02-01 33.000
1967-03-01 33.000
1967-04-01 33.100
1967-05-01 33.100
1967-06-01 33.300
1967-07-01 33.400
1967-08-01 33.500
1967-09-01 33.600
1967-10-01 33.700
1967-11-01 33.900
1967-12-01 34.000
1968-01-01 34.100
1968-02-01 34.200
1968-03-01 34.300
1968-04-01 34.400
1968-05-01 34.500
1968-06-01 34.700
1968-07-01 34.900
1968-08-01 35.000
1968-09-01 35.100
1968-10-01 35.300
1968-11-01 35.400
1968-12-01 35.600
1969-01-01 35.700
1969-02-01 35.800
1969-03-01 36.100
1969-04-01 36.300
1969-05-01 36.400
1969-06-01 36.600
1969-07-01 36.800
1969-08-01 36.900
1969-09-01 37.100
1969-10-01 37.300
1969-11-01 37.500
1969-12-01 37.700
1970-01-01 37.900
1970-02-01 38.100
1970-03-01 38.300
1970-04-01 38.500
1970-05-01 38.600
1970-06-01 38.800
1970-07-01 38.900
1970-08-01 39.000
1970-09-01 39.200
1970-10-01 39.400
1970-11-01 39.600
1970-12-01 39.800
1971-01-01 39.900
1971-02-01 39.900
1971-03-01 40.000
1971-04-01 40.100
1971-05-01 40.300
1971-06-01 40.500
1971-07-01 40.600
1971-08-01 40.700
1971-09-01 40.800
1971-10-01 40.900
1971-11-01 41.000
1971-12-01 41.100
1972-01-01 41.200
1972-02-01 41.400
1972-03-01 41.400
1972-04-01 41.500
1972-05-01 41.600
1972-06-01 41.700
1972-07-01 41.800
1972-08-01 41.900
1972-09-01 42.100
1972-10-01 42.200
1972-11-01 42.400
1972-12-01 42.500
1973-01-01 42.700
1973-02-01 43.000
1973-03-01 43.400
1973-04-01 43.700
1973-05-01 43.900
1973-06-01 44.200
1973-07-01 44.200
1973-08-01 45.000
1973-09-01 45.200
1973-10-01 45.600
1973-11-01 45.900
1973-12-01 46.300
1974-01-01 46.800
1974-02-01 47.300
1974-03-01 47.800
1974-04-01 48.100
1974-05-01 48.600
1974-06-01 49.000
1974-07-01 49.300
1974-08-01 49.900
1974-09-01 50.600
1974-10-01 51.000
1974-11-01 51.500
1974-12-01 51.900
1975-01-01 52.300
1975-02-01 52.600
1975-03-01 52.800
1975-04-01 53.000
1975-05-01 53.100
1975-06-01 53.500
1975-07-01 54.000
1975-08-01 54.200
1975-09-01 54.600
1975-10-01 54.900
1975-11-01 55.300
1975-12-01 55.600
1976-01-01 55.800
1976-02-01 55.900
1976-03-01 56.000
1976-04-01 56.100
1976-05-01 56.400
1976-06-01 56.700
1976-07-01 57.000
1976-08-01 57.300
1976-09-01 57.600
1976-10-01 57.900
1976-11-01 58.100
1976-12-01 58.400
1977-01-01 58.700
1977-02-01 59.300
1977-03-01 59.600
1977-04-01 60.000
1977-05-01 60.200
1977-06-01 60.500
1977-07-01 60.800
1977-08-01 61.100
1977-09-01 61.300
1977-10-01 61.600
1977-11-01 62.000
1977-12-01 62.300
1978-01-01 62.700
1978-02-01 63.000
1978-03-01 63.400
1978-04-01 63.900
1978-05-01 64.500
1978-06-01 65.000
1978-07-01 65.500
1978-08-01 65.900
1978-09-01 66.500
1978-10-01 67.100
1978-11-01 67.500
1978-12-01 67.900
1979-01-01 68.500
1979-02-01 69.200
1979-03-01 69.900
1979-04-01 70.600
1979-05-01 71.400
1979-06-01 72.200
1979-07-01 73.000
1979-08-01 73.700
1979-09-01 74.400
1979-10-01 75.200
1979-11-01 76.000
1979-12-01 76.900
1980-01-01 78.000
1980-02-01 79.000
1980-03-01 80.100
1980-04-01 80.900
1980-05-01 81.700
1980-06-01 82.500
1980-07-01 82.600
1980-08-01 83.200
1980-09-01 83.900
1980-10-01 84.700
1980-11-01 85.600
1980-12-01 86.400
1981-01-01 87.200
1981-02-01 88.000
1981-03-01 88.600
1981-04-01 89.100
1981-05-01 89.700
1981-06-01 90.500
1981-07-01 91.500
1981-08-01 92.200
1981-09-01 93.100
1981-10-01 93.400
1981-11-01 93.800
1981-12-01 94.100
1982-01-01 94.400
1982-02-01 94.700
1982-03-01 94.700
1982-04-01 95.000
1982-05-01 95.900
1982-06-01 97.000
1982-07-01 97.500
1982-08-01 97.700
1982-09-01 97.700
1982-10-01 98.100
1982-11-01 98.000
1982-12-01 97.700
1983-01-01 97.900
1983-02-01 98.000
1983-03-01 98.100
1983-04-01 98.800
1983-05-01 99.200
1983-06-01 99.400
1983-07-01 99.800
1983-08-01 100.100

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.

______________________________