harmonicminer

This from BBC news:

Ryanair Review Urged After Child Falls From Plane Steps (read the entire story here)

Recently a small child fell from a loading platform while boarding a jet in London.  The good news is that the little 3-year-old is fine,  just a bump on the head.  The bad news is that the airline will probably be sued by the mother and some all-too-eager attorney with visions of pound sterling dancing in his head.  The airline, not wanting any additional bad press will probably settle with the mother out of court for an “undisclosed amount”.  The airline will then probably order some reconfiguration of the boarding ramps to try and prevent a similar incident from occurring. They will then pass along the cost of the ramp retrofits to the consumer by increasing the baggage charge or perhaps initiating the first-ever rental fee on passenger jets for personal flotation devices.

What ever happened to accidents?

Why was this mother trying to handle so much all at once, especially given the multiple offers of assistance airlines give to mothers traveling with small children.  Why did the mother think of handing the smaller child off to the flight attendant only AFTER the little girl fell?  Why do we INSTANTLY assume negligence on the part of the airline?  Why doesn’t the Air Accident Investigation Branch order all parents of toddlers to undergo a review of their plane-boarding procedures?

The answer is at least in part the phalanx of John Edwards-type lawyers all too ready willing and able to go on the attack against the party with the “deep pockets”.  We have heard about how litigious our society has become and for good reason.  As long as these litigators are allowed to roam free with no governors on their behavior (like a loser-pays law or a monetary limit on damages) the queue of lawyers will continue to form everywhere something like this happens.

Another answer is the loss of the concept of personal responsibility in our world.  One need look no further than the body politic to see a very large group of elected and appointed government officials who virtually never take personal responsibility for ANYTHING!  Liars, cheaters, plagiarists, and influence peddlers are the stock -in-trade of congress. Our prisons are full of convicted criminals who are all innocent.  We have fat people who are not responsible for their weight, smokers who are not responsible for lighting up and illegal aliens who are not responsible for being here illegally.  I could go on.  So, why should this mother be responsible for her daughter’s accident?

I am a father.  My wife and I have raised 3 children.  When we got on a plane with our kids we made sure they got on the plane and in their seat.  When we took them to the playground it was our responsibility to see to it they didn’t break their neck.  Have you noticed the changes that have taken place at playgrounds over the last 20 years?  How did any of us who are over 30 ever survive?  The way we are going in another ten years all playgrounds will consist of a pile of pillows with the pillow cases depicting pictures of kids playing on REAL (but illegal) playground equipment.

Sometimes there is negligence on the part of the doctor, or lawyer or business. And when that happens there is a system in place to deal with it.  But sometimes it is not the fault of the party with the deep pockets, the blame lies with the so-called “little-guy”.  And sometimes it’s an accident.  But even to say so invites accusations of callousness and lack of caring and concern.

But I can’t be responsible for having written this.  My mother smoked while she was pregnant with me and she ate food with salt, and there was no warning label on this blog site and my English teacher in college was negligent and ….

Obama loses the Left: suddenly, it’s cool to bash Barack

Well, at least he’s still got Sir Paul McCartney. At the White House last week, the 67-year-old crooner was gushing in much the same manner as his own groupies did at Shea Stadium in 1965. “I’m a big fan, he’s a great guy,” McCartney told American critics of President Barack Obama. “So lay off him, he’s doing great.”

Later, McCartney serenaded the First Lady with a rendition of Michelle and, receiving a prize from the Library of Congress, took a cheap shot at President George W Bush that was as unfunny as it was unoriginal. “After the last eight years, it’s great to have a president who knows what a library is.” Bush. Doesn’t read books. Stupid. Geddit?

Imagine. A universe without puerile pop stars who think their ability to turn a tune translates into insight into the great game.

The problem for the President is that even if the former Beatle does speak for billions, the overwhelming majority of those are overseas. Polls show that around 10 per cent of those who voted for Obama in 2008 now disapprove of his performance and the heavy turnout of young people and black voters among the 69 million who back him will not be repeated again.

McCartney’s banalities were an example of a transatlantic dissonance that is all too apparent these days. Whereas Europe is stuck in November 2008 and still hopelessly in love with Obama, Americans have got over the historic symbolism of it all and are now moving on as they live with the reality.

That reality has now begun to dawn on some of Obama’s natural constituency – Hollywood and the Left. The “no drama Obama” demeanour that served him so well on the campaign trail is now becoming a liability.

This coincides exactly with my earlier point.

Obama takes action precisely where and when he shouldn’t, and does little or nothing when he should.

And the USA is catching on, even if the rest of the world’s left hasn’t, yet. Of course, they are perfectly happy for Obama to do anything that weakens the USA, and to avoid doing anything that will help it… it is an article of faith for them. But perhaps at least some of the USA’s homegrown left aren’t quite so lemming-like.

November 2010 is coming.

You know the scene from the movie Bambi.  The evil hunters are shooting up the entire forest, apparently possessed of limitless ammo, shooting at everything that moves, or makes a sound, or just shooting.  (Forget the fact that anyone who has ever hunted knows that hunters often spend days without firing a shot, and that one thing hunters never do is take random shots.  They go out looking for a specific thing, normally shoot only at one kind of animal, and then only if there is a likely hit potential.)

So the young bird is sitting in the bushes, hiding, as the hunters are blazing away.  The older, more experienced bird keeps saying urgently, “Don’t fly!  Don’t fly!”  But the young bird is just too rattled, and can’t bear the tension of waiting in the relative safety of the bushes, and flies anyway…  to the predictable end.

This has become a cliche in movies.  I’ve been in theaters where the audience actually tries to convince the people on screen not to open the door.

But, just lately, I’ve noticed something else.  It seems to be the blonde chick who can’t hold still and wait for the danger to pass.  The example that came to mind today is the 2005 movie (not even quite a grade B) Komodo vs. Cobra, about giant lizards and snakes on a tropical island, the result of (stereotypically) careless military experimentation.  The komodo can’t see people if they don’t move.  So everyone is holding still, but it’s the blonde chick who just can’t hold still, and alerts the dragon to their presence.

At least she was the one who got eaten, as the others ran.  There is some small justice in the movies, sometimes.

I have the impression that the Obama administration is in the role of the blonde chick regarding everything from the economy and the Gulf oil spill to health care and foreign policy, especially regarding threats to Israel, and threats from Iran, Russia and China, not to mention North Korea.

There are times when the Obama administration really should just hold still, let events take their course, and accept that there are realities in the world that it can’t undo and can hardly affect, except for the worse.  But it just can’t seem to hold still and wait for the predators to pass.

It’s risible.  The feds take action on health care (which will be about as useful as yelling “run” when you’re trying to hide from a tyranosaurus that’s 10 feet away).  They pass a “stimulus” bill that stimulates nothing but our national debt, and they “bail out” various banks and GM, about like giving a blood transfusion to a gunshot victim without sewing up the wound, all without dealing with the incoming gunfire.

Obama basically gave away our missile defense system for Europe, that would have provided at least some shield against a nuclear Iran, all because it just couldn’t seem to resist the urge to do something specific to “improve” our relations with Russia, to “reset” our Russian diplomacy.

The Obama administration just can’t resist the urge to take action when it will do no good, and probably do harm.

At the same time, when quick, decisive action is called for, such as on the Gulf oil spill (why, oh why, aren’t they throwing the full resources of the government into building the berms that Governor Jindal wants, skimming and burning, putting up booms, etc.?), Obama dithers, apparently flash-frozen in fear of being seen to do something whose outcome he can’t fully predict…  like that ever stopped him before.  Of course, even more frightening, maybe he really thinks he can predict the outcome of raising taxes, printing Monopoly money, and taking over national healthcare….  and thinks it will be good.

Holey moley.

And when a quick statement is needed in support of Israel’s right to enforce a blockade on Gaza (which is essentially in a perpetual state of war with Israel, under Hamas), all Obama can muster is a tepid “we’ll have to investigate.”  And his gutless response to North Korea’s sinking of a ship belong to one of our allies, South Korea, is not exactly inspiring.

From what I can tell, Obama exercises “statesmanlike restraint” at all the worst times, when he really needs to be doing something.  And when it’s time to recognize that natural events must take their course (mismanaged companies need to fail), Obama explodes in a fury of activity.

All this while sensible people are constantly telling him, “Don’t fly!  Don’t fly!”

I fear that there are some real predators who are about to see him as fair game.  I hope he doesn’t take too many of us with him.

The next time you get a chance to take a shot at a future conqueror, take it. No, lefty nitwits, I’m not talking about taking a shot at the next Republican president-elect. I’m talking about people whose overweening ambition makes them think they have the right to conquer the world.  By definition, no US president qualifies, because all have left office, willingly or not, without coercion, and gone home to write their memoirs, if they lived long enough. 

No, I’m talking about a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Mao, or….  well, you get the idea.  Kaiser Wilhelm, without whom World War I would probably not have occurred as it did, is one such, though that seems not to have been immediately obvious to Annie Oakley…  a dead shot if there ever was one.  Although after WWI started, she seems to have caught on quickly enough about the Kaiser’s character.

THERMOPYLAEHILLBILLY: Annie Oakley and Kaiser Wilhelm II

Where would we be today if Annie Oakley had just a little more to drink in 1889? Kaiser Wilhelm II was the Reich’s new leader and had a box seat to watch Oakley at the Berlin Charlottenburg Race Course. She was appearing with Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show and had cleaned her Colt 45 the night before. Annie announced that she would shot the ashes off any man or woman’s Havana cigar. Normally her husband Frank Butler come out of the audience and her speech was just for show.

She never expected anyone, including Kaiser Wilhelm II to take her up on her offer and here came the Kaiser out of his box seat. Oakley had made her dare, there stood the Kaiser and she couldn’t back down. So as she measured her distance the Kaiser took out a cigar and started puffing. The German police thought it was a joke until the Kaiser took up his position. The Kaiser told the police to get out of the way.

Annie Oakley, American sharp shooter, raised her pistol, aimed and blew the ashes off Kaiser Wilhelm II cigar. Had she missed the woman from Cincinnati may have prevented the First World War 25 years later. When World War I started Annie wrote the Kaiser asking for a second chance. Silence followed……………

What If Diaries » What if Annie Oakley had shot Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1889?

One chilly November afternoon in 1889, a fur-coated crowd assembled in Berlin’s Charlottenburg Race Course to enjoy a performance of Buffalo Bill’s Wild Wild West Show, which was touring Europe to great popular acclaim. Among the audience was the Reich’s impetuous young ruler, Kaiser Wilhelm II, who had been on the throne for a year. Wilhelm was particularly keen to see the show’s star attraction, Annie Oakley, famed throughout the world for her skills with a Colt. 45.

On that day, as usual, Annie announced to the crowd that she would attempt to shoot the ashes from the cigar of some lady or gentleman in the audience. “Who shall volunteer to hold the cigar?” she asked. In fact, she expected no one from the crowd to volunteer; she simply asked for laughs. Her long-suffering husband, Frank Butler, always stepped forward and offered himself as her human Havana-holder.

This time, however, Annie had no sooner made her announcement then Kaiser Wilhelm himself leaped out of the royal box and strutted into the arena. Annie was stunned and horrified but could not retract her dare without losing face. She paced off her usual distance while Wilhelm extracted a cigar from a gold case and lit it with flourish. Several German policeman, suddenly realizing that this was not one of kaiser’s little jokes, tried to preempt the stunt, but were waved off by His All-Highest Majesty. Sweating profusely under her buckskin, and regretful that she had consumed more than her usual amount of whiskey the night before, Annie raised her Colt, took aim, and blew away Wilhem’s ashes.

Had the sharpshooter from Cincinnati creased the kaiser’s head rather than his cigar, one of Europe,s most ambitious and volatile rulers would have been removed from the scene. Germany might not have pursued its policy of aggressive Weltpolitik that culminated in war twenty-five years later.

Annie herself seemed to realize her mistake later on. After World War I began, she wrote to the kaiser asking for a second shot. He did not respond.

Annie Oakley, the Butterfly Effect, and You

In the late 1800s, Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show was a dazzling display of horsemanship, gunplay and other cowboy skills. One of its acts involved the sharpshooting of the great Annie Oakley. Dubbed “Little Sure Shot,” Oakley had an amazing routine – she would shoot out lit candles, for example, and the corks of wine bottles.

For her grand finale, she would shoot out the lit end of a cigarette held in a man’s mouth at a certain distance. For this, she would ask for volunteers from the audience. As no one ever volunteered, she had her husband planted among the spectators. He would “volunteer” and they would complete the dangerous trick together.

Well, during one swing through Europe, Oakley was setting up her finale and she asked for volunteers. To her shock – and the surprise of everyone involved with the show – she got a real volunteer.

The proud young Prince (soon to be Kaiser) Wilhelm bravely stepped down from among the spectators, strode into the ring and stuck a lit cigarette in his mouth.

Reportedly out late the night before enjoying the local beer gardens, the unexpected appearance of this famous volunteer unnerved her. But the show must go on.

She took aim and fired… putting out the cigarette, much to Wilhelm’s amusement.

Thus, she also created one of historians’ favorite “what if” moments. What if her bullet went through the future Kaiser’s left ear? Would World War I have happened? Would the lives of 9 million soldiers and 6.6 million civilians have been spared? Would Hitler have risen from the ashes of defeated Germany? All sorts of questions come to mind…

Many historians think that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, leading to the Soviet Union, would not have occurred without World War I to weaken the Czar (who was made by Lenin and Stalin to seem rather a nice fellow, by comparison).  Nazi Germany is difficult to credit as a likely outcome of a Germany that didn’t fight in WWI, because no great German angst would been present about a non-existent Treaty of Versailles, and no not-quite-imperialistic Kaiser would have tolerated Hitler in the feckless way German proto-democracy did.  In any case, without the agony of the post-war years, Hitler would have been only another anti-Semite, with no way to get traction with the German public at large.

World War II is hard to imagine without World War I.  Germany simply wouldn’t have had the drive to do it, absent the peculiar circumstances of the end of WW I.  At most, Japanese imperialism might have been a problem…  but strong British Empire, not weakened by WWI, would have been in a clear position to oppose Japanese aggression in China and elsewhere, and probably given the Emperor so much to consider that attacking the USA would have been a very low priority.

So imagine a 20th century without two world wars, without a cold war, indeed, without communism, which would have meant no Korean War, no Vietnam War, etc.  Imagine a still-strong British Empire still ruling the waves, shipping around the world the incredible output of American industry.

I know that cultural trends are present in history.  But I’m also pretty sure that without specific deeds by specific people, everything would have been different.

All of which occasionally leaves me wondering, in a much more pedestrian way, what deeds or words of everyday folk can sometimes have an effect that is seemingly far disproportionate to their obvious impact?

If anyone is counting, this is the 1200th post on this blog.  Or so says the WordPress editor.

I hate to quote only an excerpt of this piece by Mark Steyn, titled We’re too broke to be this stupid.

Back in 2008, when I was fulminating against multiculturalism on a more or less weekly basis, a reader wrote to advise me to lighten up, on the grounds that “we’re rich enough to afford to be stupid.”

Two years later, we’re a lot less rich. In fact, many Western nations are, in any objective sense, insolvent. Hence last week’s column, on the EU’s decision to toss a trillion dollars into the great sucking maw of Greece’s public-sector kleptocracy. It no longer matters whether you’re intellectually in favour of European-style social democracy: simply as a practical matter, it’s unaffordable.
………
… the easiest “solution” to <social problems of all kinds> is to throw public money at <them>. You know how it is when you’re at the mall and someone rattles a collection box under your nose and you’re not sure where it’s going but it’s probably for Darfur or Rwanda or Hoogivsastan. Whatever. You’re dropping a buck or two in the tin for the privilege of not having to think about it. For the more ideologically committed, there’s always the awareness-raising rock concert: it’s something to do with Bono and debt forgiveness, whatever that means, but let’s face it, going to the park for eight hours of celebrity caterwauling beats having to wrap your head around Afro-Marxist economics. The modern welfare state operates on the same principle: since the Second World War, the hard-working middle classes have transferred historically unprecedented amounts of money to the unproductive sector in order not to have to think about it. But so what? We were rich enough that we could afford to be stupid.

The reason I hated to quote only the excerpt is because you should really read it all.

Steyn goes on to make the case that a great deal that is publicly funded, with taxes extracted from average working people, is counterproductive, or at least subsidizes bad behavior.  He is at his usual entertaining and trenchant best.  Read it all at the link above.

What it boils down to is this:  trying to repeal the laws of economics is a luxury for societies with lots of extra cash laying about.  That is no longer the case in pretty much any society, and certainly not in western society.   It’s a bit like pretending you’ve undone the laws of thermodynamics by injecting extra energy from outside the system, so that you can try to convince people that entropy isn’t really happening. 

But there are some laws of economics that apply.  Here are a few:

1)  You will get more of anything you subsidize.
2)  If you increase demand, and don’t increase supply, prices go up.
3)  If you increase demand, and don’t increase supply, and don’t let prices go up, shortages and rationing come next.
4)  If you decrease supply, and don’t decrease demand, prices go up.
5)  If you decrease supply, and don’t decrease demand, and don’t let prices go up, shortages and rationing come next.
6)  If you spend money on things that don’t lead to the production of more money than you spent, then you’re losing money.
7)  Ponzi schemes always collapse eventually, usually sooner than the con artists hoped.

It may not be clear to you, but virtually EVERY regulation has the effect of decreasing supply, and so prices go up.  So we had better have a minimum of regulation, sticking to only the absolutely necessary.  Keep in mind that rich people who own businesses don’t pay high prices.  They just pass them on to consumers.  When they reach a point where they can no longer pass higher prices on to consumers (because consumers won’t pay it, or the government won’t let them raise prices themselves, regardless of their costs), they leave the business, since that means it’s no longer making money.

The single biggest Ponzi scheme in American history is Social Security.  The next biggest is Medicare.  If you aren’t already collecting benefits from one of them, you aren’t going to get nearly as much from them as did your predecessors.  Your children will get FAR less than that.  Check the economies of Greece and Spain for details.

The “tea parties” springing up around the country are evidence that the entire electorate has not lost its mind, but part of the electorate is clearly insane.  Or suicidal, which may be the same thing.

The 2008 election was a prime example of hope (and apparently faith in the tooth fairy) triumphing over clear thinking based on facts and history.

As Dallas Willard says in Knowing Christ Today, people only know what they’re willing to know.  So I suppose that putting this together with Mark Steyn’s observation that “we’re too broke to be this stupid,” we can say that we’re too broke to be willfully stupid.

We’re too broke to decide we just don’t want to know how we got that way.

I think some people are beginning to catch on, finally.  Pray it isn’t too late.

One year anniversary of late-term abortionist George Tiller (the baby killer’s) death by Jill Stanek

Pro-aborts have been paying tributes and are planning memorials.

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has read or will read a Tiller tribute statement on the Senate floor today.

For a donation of $75 the TX Equal Access Fund “will deliver a handmade card, flowers, and a basket of goodies” to your favorite abortion mill on May 31….

The George Tiller Abortion Fund has been established to subsidize late-term abortions.

At the Abortioneers blog Silky Laminaria recalled where s/he was the moment s/he learned Tiller had been killed, closing with a Tiller quote.

I’m sorry, and meaning no disrespect for the dead, but what exactly is that supposed to mean? The quote only reminds me of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey.

NARAL has made a tribute video…

Jill Stanek goes on at the link above to discuss the ridiculous commemoration of George Tiller as if he is some kind of hero, instead of a killer of babies.  It’s worth reading it all.

These truly are the end times.

The Fox show 24 is going off the air, having just broadcast its finale episode this week.

LOST is going off the air, too, with a finale episode this week.

I read somewhere that Ghost Whisperer, that paean to bad theology and ambiguous afterlife, is also going off the air.

And the show Numb3rs is going off the air.  I read somewhere that over the six seasons it aired, 666 murders were investigated (about five per show?), and at least 20 people survived non-survivable head wounds.  Besides that, the mathematical genius brother of the FBI agent seems to have had a relationship with numbers that can only be described as…  mystical.  Makes you wonder.  Was the show giving away the secrets of the apocalypse?

I’ve always wondered why Ghost Whisperer hasn’t featured an episode with all the terrorists that Jack Bauer killed on 24, but that’s just me.

So, my theory.

24 is going off the air.  That’s because Jack has already knocked off all the terrorists, and there won’t be time for any more to appear before the final apocalypse.

Ghost Whisperer is going off the air because all the dead people have already shuffled off to wherever they’re going, and there aren’t going to be any more dead people before the apocalypse, at which point talking to ghosts will be kind of pointless.

LOST is going off the air because pretty soon we’re all going to know exactly who is lost, and who isn’t.

Numb3rs is leaving us because it was just giving away too many hints about what the number 666 really means.  When I have some time I’m going to do a numerological analysis of the title of the show.  I’ll bet there is something encoded there, hiding in plain sight….

But when a bunch of long running shows are canceled all at once, including some with pretty good ratings…..  you have to wonder.  What are they trying to keep from us?  What secrets would have been revealed in the next episodes, if only they’d stayed on the air?

And finally, one other observation: almost no one is buying real estate these days, so almost no one is in escrow.  Since escrow is an eternal state (escrows never end), if no one is in escrow, then that means all escrows have ended.  But that means we must be at the end-times.  Well, the beginning of the end-times.  I suppose people with the mark of the beast might still be in escrow, still being able to buy and sell.

The proliferation of 2012 disaster movies is just a premonition of things to come even sooner.

Maybe even before the 2010 elections.  We’ll know if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid switch parties and become tea-baggers before November.

I’m predicting that the CW show Supernatural will have just one more season….  if that.  It seems that it’s getting harder and harder to put makeup on Satan.

So….  think of the current life on Earth as a very long running show that is about to be canceled, having been failing in the ratings lately.  Rumor has it that the studio Chief Executive sent in a Trouble-Shooter a couple-thousand years ago, but the production company has mostly failed to see reason, and is ignoring His advice.  The show was almost canceled once before, early in its run, when really bad weather interfered with the shooting schedule.

Better store water, food and ammo.  And gold.  Lots of gold.  Not that it will do you any good in the long run, but since you may be left standing around after the rapture (you can come to my house and move in, if you can find it, since my family and I are expecting to be on permanent vacation), you may find some temporal preparations useful.

Include a Bible in your stores.

You’ll be more interested in reading it then than you may be now.

In The Difference Being a Parent Makes, Al Mohler makes some interesting observations about Steve Jobs’ decision not to market “porn apps” for the iPad:

Political scientists and sociologists long ago came to the realization that one of the most significant indicators of political behavior is parenthood. Those who bear responsibility to raise children look at the world differently from those who do not. In fact, parenthood may be the most easily identifiable predictor of an individual’s position on an entire range of issues.

Parenthood by married parents both living at home is an even better predictor. Single mothers still go pretty left as an average, on a range of issues, reflecting in how they vote, among other things… but Mohler’s point isn’t without weight.

Now, along comes Steve Jobs to prove the point. Jobs, the Maestro of Cool at Apple, recently engaged in a most interesting email exchange with Ryan Tate, who writes the “Valleywag” blog for the gossip Web site, Gawker.

On his initial email to Steve Jobs, Tate complained about what he described as a lack of freedom in Apple’s approach to the approval of products for its “App Store” for iPods, the iPhone, and the iPad. “If Dylan was 20 today, how would he feel about your company?,” Tate asked. “Would he think the iPad had the faintest thing to do with ‘revolution?’ Revolutions are about freedom.”

Apparently, Tate was upset about some of the restrictions put in place by Apple. Among those restrictions is a ban on pornography.

Steve Jobs threw Ryan Tate’s definition of freedom right back at him. Is Apple about freedom? “Yep,” said Jobs, “freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’.”

One of the interesting dimensions of Steve Jobs’ leadership at Apple is his habit of answering selected emails personally. It appears that Ryan Tate’s complaint got under Jobs’ skin. It is even more apparent that Jobs’ response irritated Ryan Tate.

“I don’t want freedom from porn,” Tate asserted. “Porn is just fine.” Jobs sent back a remarkably insightful retort, informing Ryan Tate that he “might care more about porn when you have kids.”

Even if Jobs decision is “pure business” and not based on a personal preference of his own, namely not to market easily available porn apps to kids, it is still remarkable that he was so transparent in his observation that Tate might feel differently about the matter if he had kids.

Young people are all about freedom.  They want to do what they want to do, and they don’t want to be told different.  Of course there will be exceptions, but the pattern is clear.  For this purpose, I consider most adults before late middle age who have no children to be “young people,” again with many exceptions.  I simply observe that you aren’t really a grown up, in most cases, until there is someone in your life whose welfare is WAY more important than yours, and for whom you are chiefly responsible.  I include in the list of “grown ups” many people who really, really want children…  but for some reason can’t have them.  And also, it’s fair to include in the list of “grown ups” those people whose lives really are mostly about service and caring for others, priests, ministers, etc.

If you don’t have kids, and think you belong on the “grown up” list, fine, I won’t argue with you.  But I think it’s a fair observation that parenthood changes you.  It reforms the habits of your mind.  You find yourself looking at a great many aspects of our culture through an entirely different lens, one which is focused on the welfare of someone for whom you are responsible, and whose outcomes matter enormously to you.  You find that your freedom seems less important to you than your kids well-being.

You may notice that much of the freedom you so prized in your unfettered, pre-parenting state is now less than worthless to you…  and further, you may find that a culture that encouraged you to exercise that freedom now seems threatening to your children.

I know a lot of people who lived pretty “free” lives, right up until they had kids.  And then, one day, they saw something on TV, something that had never bothered them before, took a look at their child taking it all in….  and changed the channel.  And then blocked it.  And then went and looked in the mirror and wondered about themselves.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that parenthood makes you start thinking about eternal things a bit more, even if you hadn’t been too concerned about it up to that point.  If you really, truly love your children, sooner or later you’re going to wonder how you’d handle it if one of them predeceased you.  And that makes you start wondering what meaning their life would have had if they died young.  And that opens the door to serious consideration of all kinds of very important questions.

God has ways of getting our attention, even if we’re hard of hearing. 

And a little child shall lead them.

This is Sam, short for Samson.  Sam is not particularly strong.  He has the IQ of an underachieving gerbil.

I suppose I should be careful in criticizing this worthless accretion of canine protoplasm.  My mother-in-law really loves Sam.  I have no idea why.  I suppose it could be sheer, unmerited grace.  Sam is not a Calvinist, although he thinks my mother-in-law is God.

Sam was limping today, so we hauled him off to the vet when we could find no obvious injury to the foot he wasn’t walking on, the left rear.

It turns out, $450 and 7 hours later, that he has a broken toe, etiology unknown but recent, like in the last few hours.  I’m guessing he tried to see if he could fly off the top of the dog house, Clark Kent style, and instead of landing on his head, which wouldn’t have hurt him in any discernible way, he landed on a middle toe.

Or, alternatively, the two canine ladies he lives with, named Cassie and Maggie, played just a little bit too rough this morning.

Who knows?

I’m not sure I knew that dogs had toes.  I thought they had paws.

In any case, Sam is being introduced to the glories of modern chemistry.  In the photo above, he definitely has that Woodstock look, don’t you think?

Here he is definitely inhaling:

Sam is now an inside dog for the next month or so.  He’s supposed to really take it easy, not challenge the toes, etc.  To aid in the achievement of this doubtlessly noble goal, the vet gave us enough pain-relieving downers to ameliorate the suffering of dozens of faculty meetings.

Sam, of course, does not attend faculty meetings, though I have occasionally speculated that his intellectual peers may be in attendance.

Nor, as you can see from the photos, is he feeling any pain.

You should see him walk in that whole leg splint.  He looks like Rudolph Nureyev after a stroke, trying to do a Fouette.

Not that we would be able to detect any diminished mental capacity if he did have a stroke.   Goldfish have longer memories.

Come to think of it, this whole thing may have started with a Grand Jete off the doghouse.

FBI files discuss Cronkite aiding Vietnam protesters

Legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite allegedly collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1960s, going so far as to offer advice on how to raise the public profile of protests and even pledging CBS News resources to help pull off events, according to FBI documents obtained by Yahoo! News.

The documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, say that in November 1969, Cronkite encouraged students at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla., to invite Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie to address a protest they were planning near Cape Kennedy (now known as Cape Canaveral). Cronkite told the group’s leader that Muskie would be nearby for a fundraiser on the day of the protest, and said that “CBS would rent [a] helicopter to take Muskie to and from site of rally,” according to the documents.

more at the link above

Mojave cross missing

A cross at the Mojave National Preserve that has served as a World War I memorial and was the subject of a First Amendment lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court was reported missing Monday, officials say.

Linda Slater, spokeswoman for the preserve, said the wooden cover over the cross was reported missing Saturday. The uncovered cross was seen again Sunday. But when National Preserve staff went to the site to replace the wooden cover, the cross was gone.

A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California in 2001 argued that the display of the cross in the memorial violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court in April by a 5-4 ruling decided that the cross could stay.

There is, as yet, no word on who removed the Mojave Cross. Your speculations are as good as mine.

But I have my suspicions.

LATER THOUGHT:

I wonder if the people who are willing to do anything to get that cross removed have any concern whatsoever about the beliefs of the soldiers who gave their lives, or their families?  Of course, some proportion of anti-religion fanaticism claims to be pacifist, and blames religion for the violence in the world.  But if they are the ones who took this cross, it seems they have no compunctions about theft.

UPDATE:  Here’s an update with more details.

I’ve commented on the issue of the biggest dangers to young people here.  And here is more corroboration for the perspective I gave.

Car Crashes Leading Cause of Teen Deaths in U.S.

Of the more than 16,000 teenagers who die in the United States each year, most are killed in automobile accidents, but murder, suicide, cancer and heart disease also take their toll, a new government report finds.

In fact, among black male teens, homicide is the leading cause of death, said report author Arialdi M. Minino, a statistician at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

“This is a group of people we don’t pay much attention to when we talk about mortality,” Minino said. Teen deaths account for less than 1 percent of all deaths per year in the United States, he noted.

Still, Minino thinks that more needs to be done to cut the number of teenage deaths.

“These are preventable causes of death,” he said. “So, this is a group where we can extend ourselves so kids won’t die, by extending common sense ideas.”

Each year in the United States, an estimated 16,375 children between the ages of 12 and 19 die. Nearly 50 percent die in accidents, with car crashes accounting for more than one-third of all deaths, Minino found.

But among black male teens, murder is the leading cause of death. Moreover, the highest teen death rate is among black males at 94.1 deaths per 100,000 people. “That’s 50 times more than among white males. That’s a very large disparity,” Minino said.

The leading causes of death among teens stayed the same during the period studied, Minino noted. Accidents accounted for 48 percent of deaths; homicide, 13 percent; suicide, 11 percent; cancer, 6 percent; and heart disease, 3 percent.

In addition, from 1999 to 2006, the annual death rate for teens has remained constant, at about 49.5 deaths per 100,000 population, Minino said.

But the risk of dying is not the same for all teenagers. Boys are more likely to die than girls, and older teens are at higher risk of dying than younger teens.

For example, for 12-year-old boys the death rate is 46 percent higher than for girls. At 19, the death rate is three times higher for boys than girls (135.2 deaths and 46.1 deaths per 100,000, respectively), Minino found.

“I wish people would look at these groups with an eye toward intervention,” Minino said. Teenagers are a “relatively neglected group when it comes to public health.”

Another expert sees the human cost of teen deaths and stressed that even though the number of deaths is low, teenage deaths should not be ignored.

“I hope when people read this report they realize how sobering it is and are not falsely lulled by the fact that these adolescent deaths ‘only’ make up 1 percent of total deaths,” said Dr. Karen Sheehan, medical director of the Injury Prevention and Research Center at Children’s Memorial Hospital and medical director of the Injury Free Coalition for Kids in Chicago.

When thinking about deaths of young people, it is important to consider the years of potential life lost, she said.

“Every one of these 16,000 adolescents who died will never get married . . or contribute positively to society,” Sheehan said. “We should be appalled that this many deaths happen to children this age, and we should be ashamed that these deaths occur disproportionately in certain populations.”

Hmm…  this last strikes me as a ridiculous comment.  Should we be less ashamed if the murder rate among non-black young males was just as high as that for blacks?  It isn’t the disproportionality of which we should be ashamed.  It is our failure to deal with the cause of the young black male murder rate that shames us.  That cause is well known to everyone, namely the fact that most of those killing and being killed did not have married fathers in the home raising them.  THAT is the biggest single factor, not race itself. 

The government policies that have encouraged the destruction of the black family are also well known, aren’t they?

So much for “promoting the general welfare.”

They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools

Although public schools are usually the biggest item in state and local budgets, spending figures provided by public school officials and reported in the media often leave out major costs of education and thus understate what is actually spent.

To document the phenomenon, this paper reviews district budgets and state records for the nation’s five largest metro areas and the District of Columbia. It reveals that, on average, per-pupil spending in these areas is 44 percent higher than officially reported.

Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los Angeles metro region.

To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that, in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than the estimated median private school.

Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed decisions about public school funding unless they know how much districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar

At the link above, the article introduced here is available (scroll down on the page to see it).   If you care about how your tax dollars for education are being spent, it’s required reading.

The problem with public education is NOT too little money allocated for it.