It appears that it is time once again for a lesson I call, E-mail 101. This week alone, I have received several e-mails that required either A) half a dozen or more mouse clicks to open multiple attachments, B) scrolling down through hundreds of prior email addresses from multiple forwarding actions, or C) attempting to read misspelled words, strange punctuation marks and spaces in the middle of words and phrases and embedded messages from unknown people who forwarded the original message without editing it.
The tips I am about to give you are not my own. They were compiled and fine-tuned by a fellow Georgian named Cal Hendrix. Cal had one of the best websites I have ever visited, called Cal’s Gallery. Cal died on June 11, 2007, and even though I never met the man, I was deeply saddened by his passing. His daughter maintained the website for a year or two after his passing, but it is now history.
I’m going to borrow only a few of Cal’s e-mailing tips, so that I can show you how to ‘clean up’ an e-mail prior to forwarding it. I will type keyboard keys in italics, so that you know exactly which ones to depress. It is really quite simple, because you only have to use six keys on your keyboard: Ctrl, A, C, V, Shift and Delete.
First up: How to copy and paste.
If you want to forward an attachment that is essentially a text document with no video, audio or still pictures in it, it is easiest and best to open the actual attachment (go through all those mouse clicks until you get the genuine message) and copy / paste it into either your word processor or a new, blank e-mail that you are creating. I prefer to paste into a blank Microsoft Word document, because then I can edit and spell-check it prior to converting it to e-mail message format using the same copy / paste procedure.
Here is how to copy / paste any text to or from e-mail and Word.
1. First, you'll need to select the text you wish to copy. You do this by putting your mouse cursor at the first character you want to copy and, holding down the left mouse button, drag the cursor to the last character you need copied. As you drag, you'll notice everything gets highlighted (selected).
2. Next, simultaneously depress Ctrl + C for a moment and the selected text will be copied. You wont see it, but it is on your clipboard for you to use.
3. Finally, move your cursor to the area in your new document where you would like to insert the text. Then, simultaneously depress Ctrl + V and the text will appear on your screen. You can now work with it in its new position.
That's it. The steps are basically the same for any copy / paste procedure you need to do. Remember, you can copy / paste from e-mail to Word, or from Word to e-mail the same way.
If you have a really long area of text that you want to copy / paste, here is another way to handle it.
Place your cursor at the first character you want selected and left-click it. While holding down the Shift key, move your cursor to the last character you want selected and left-click again. All of the text in between will now be highlighted. Now simultaneously depress the Ctrl + C to copy and the Ctrl + V to paste as explained above. It's sometimes easier to follow this procedure than to make selections by dragging, especially when you’re wrestling with a lengthy document, and you only want to copy/paste part of it. I can't remember the number of times the area I wanted to stop selecting at zipped right by me on a document!
Another fun way to use the Shift key is adding to an existing selection. Let's say you select an area of text and you came up short of what you really needed. Rather than trying to re-select the whole thing, try this. While the partial text is still highlighted, just depress the Shift key, move your cursor to the last character you intend to copy and left-click your mouse. (You can also shorten a selection by doing this.) After you have used the Shift key to get your text selected, follow the previous steps to copy / paste.
Finally, if you have that lengthy text and you want to copy every word of it, (you can edit it later for spelling and other tidbits you want to remove) that is the easiest copy / paste procedure. Just depress Ctrl + A on your keyboard to highlight the entire text. Then depress Ctrl + C to copy it. Lastly, place your cursor wherever you want to place the text and depress Ctrl + V, and it will appear there. Remember that you have to press Ctrl and hold it down while pressing the other keys.
Once you do this a few times you will see how easy it is. It took me a year to learn it, trying to read those fancy tutorials on the net! That's why I'm trying to keep this very basic.
Next up: How to forward an attachment containing graphics
If you want to forward that video, audio or slide show presentation, (any type of attachment that has photos or graphics in it), copy / paste won’t always work, so it is best to forward it as an attachment.
1. Go through all the mouse clicks necessary to open the attachment. When you reach the genuine one, and you decide you want to forward it, close the attachment and display the previous screen. Stop there.
2. Click on the Forward button on the menu at the top of your screen. That will only forward the attachment, but none of the prior screens you had to go through to get to it.
3. Add e-mail addresses for your recipients in the ‘bcc:’ area. That way, nobody receiving the message sees whom else you sent it to. It respects privacy.
4. Change the Subject line so that all the ‘Fw:’ and ‘Re:’ marks are gone and only the subject title remains.
5. Delete any text that might already be in the text box on your current screen, and compose your own accompanying text for the attachment. Sign your message.
6. Click on the Send button, and your “clean” e-mail with attachment will be on its way.
If you have trouble performing the above steps, because you don’t have a menu bar with the icons on it to work with, then you are probably using your online account manager to read and store your e-mail messages. Most of them do not give you the ability to perform reply or forwarding of attachments. You have to go all the way back to the received message to get that menu across the top of your screen.
All PCs have some kind of built-in mail manager like Outlook or Outlook Express. That is what you should be using if you want to forward from within the message. It is simple to configure all your e-mail accounts in Outlook or Outlook Express.
Go to whichever search engine you use—I use Google or Yahoo or Bing—and input “configure (****) in (*******)”. Of course, you want to input your e-mail provider and your internal mail manager in place of the asterisks and parentheses and leave the quotes out as well. For example, configure yahoo in outlook, and click on the Search button. Follow the instructions in the webpage that comes up and you can receive and send all your e-mail from the internal mail manager. And now the procedure above will work fine.
We have one final step to cover: Cleaning up your forwards.
That is, let’s remove all those former e-mail addresses of everyone who previously got copies of the message, and delete all those >>> marks in front of each line of text and the exclamation points in the middle of words. You should try to do this with every message you decide to forward. It not only respects the privacy of others, it also makes it easier to get to the meat of the message. And it is so quick and easy to do that you should make it a “must do” before you send any e-mail. Here is the procedure.
1. Click on the Forward button on your upper menu. (You won’t have to do this for messages where you used the copy / paste procedure. You already got rid of all the garbage before you transferred the text.)
2. Put in all your “bcc:” addresses, clean up the subject line and put your cursor in the text box.
3. Using the same technique you used to copy / paste, highlight any text you want to get rid of, such as those lengthy e-mail addresses from prior forwards. You might have to do this in groups, especially if the texts are in different fonts.
4. Depress the Delete key on the keyboard. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for all unwanted text in your message, including ‘>’ and ‘!’ and all those other strange symbols that get added whenever a message is forwarded.
5. Use a spellchecker under Tools on the top menu bar to correct spellings.
6. When you have only the text that you want in your message, send it in the normal manner.
There you have it. If you follow these simple steps with any message, you will speed up the entire process, too. Uploads and downloads will be much faster, and no one will be forced to wade through all the junk to find the gem.
Now, do yourself a favor and copy / paste this message into your word processor, make your own document with the title “E-mail Tips” and keep it for future reference. “Try it – you’ll like it.”
Note: If you want to practice these techniques, once you have copied and pasted the entire message into a word processor document and saved it, reopen it and highlight a paragraph and copy / paste it below. That’s right, copy this paragraph, move your cursor down below this area, and then paste the same paragraph in. When you finish, just close the document again, only this time, when the pop up asks if you want to ‘Save Changes’, click ‘No’. Only the original text will remain in your saved document.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
The New Word
We have a new word in the Urban Dictionary. The Urban Dictionary is an online dictionary that has a lot of invented, coined and combined words not found in your standard dictionaries. The newest word in this ever-evolving compendium is “surcame.” You won’t be able to guess its origin, so I’ll tell you in a few moments.
“Surcame” is defined in the Urban Dictionary as the past tense of “surcome.” Now, if that doesn’t help you, try the definition of “surcome” another word in the UD that isn’t found elsewhere. Well, that is defined as the same as “Succumb” which is further defined in the offline dictionary—Merriam Webster, New Oxford, or take your pick—as, “...to give way to, yield or die.”
Now that we know what “surcame” means, let’s examine, at least in my humble opinion, how it came to be.
I believe that someone twisted the word “succumb” into surcome, probably because they never took the time to look up the proper spelling. It sounds similar to succumb. It also is similar in spelling to the word “surcease,” which has a similar meaning to succumb and does contain the first syllable if the invented word. After that, the word became ingrained and was used repeatedly, so several others picked it up in their vocabularies.
Okay, wrong word, but close.
Now we come to the quote that first used the word “surcame” in context:
President came to the White house with a lot of good intentions to help the little guy, to make things fair, but he surcame to the wishes of big business, and to the political pressures of Washington DC.
Leave aside the fact that this quote isn’t even a complete sentence, and examine the use of the word. It was very clever of the ignoramus who uttered it to conjugate the improper word in order to make it preterit—past tense for those of you who didn’t know that word.
Who do you suppose it was that first used the word “surcame” in that incomplete sentence? Some street corner gang-banger? Perhaps a rapper? How about a high school drop out?
Surprise! It was Dr. Cornel West, a Princeton professor, actor, author, and political activist. I’ll give him the benefit of his prestigious position for the poor sentence structure, but c’mon, Doc, you owe our kids better grammar and language for their $50,000 annual tuition.
I rest my case...
“Surcame” is defined in the Urban Dictionary as the past tense of “surcome.” Now, if that doesn’t help you, try the definition of “surcome” another word in the UD that isn’t found elsewhere. Well, that is defined as the same as “Succumb” which is further defined in the offline dictionary—Merriam Webster, New Oxford, or take your pick—as, “...to give way to, yield or die.”
Now that we know what “surcame” means, let’s examine, at least in my humble opinion, how it came to be.
I believe that someone twisted the word “succumb” into surcome, probably because they never took the time to look up the proper spelling. It sounds similar to succumb. It also is similar in spelling to the word “surcease,” which has a similar meaning to succumb and does contain the first syllable if the invented word. After that, the word became ingrained and was used repeatedly, so several others picked it up in their vocabularies.
Okay, wrong word, but close.
Now we come to the quote that first used the word “surcame” in context:
President came to the White house with a lot of good intentions to help the little guy, to make things fair, but he surcame to the wishes of big business, and to the political pressures of Washington DC.
Leave aside the fact that this quote isn’t even a complete sentence, and examine the use of the word. It was very clever of the ignoramus who uttered it to conjugate the improper word in order to make it preterit—past tense for those of you who didn’t know that word.
Who do you suppose it was that first used the word “surcame” in that incomplete sentence? Some street corner gang-banger? Perhaps a rapper? How about a high school drop out?
Surprise! It was Dr. Cornel West, a Princeton professor, actor, author, and political activist. I’ll give him the benefit of his prestigious position for the poor sentence structure, but c’mon, Doc, you owe our kids better grammar and language for their $50,000 annual tuition.
I rest my case...
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Tax Refunds
“If ever there was a time to review your withholding of federal income tax, this is the time.”
I cannot pass up this opportunity, which only comes at this time of year. It is, of course, “tax season.” For some it falls between January 31–about the earliest you can get copies of all the documents needed to file–and April 1. For others, it starts on April 1 and can run up to midnight on April 18, the last deadline this year to file taxes without penalties for dollars you owe to the IRS.
Last year the average federal tax refund passed the $3,000 level, a 10-percent increase from the 2008 tax year. An even more amazing statistic is that 4 out of 5 taxpayers will receive a refund this year.
Those people fall into the early file category above, because they want to get that huge lump-sum payment from Uncle Sam ASAP. (I’ll get back to that lump sum at the end of this column)
The latter group, those who file at the last minute, do so because they either owe some additional taxes, or they have a very modest refund coming. I am in that group, and I am going to tell you why we should all be in that 15-day filing window.
If you divide $3,000 by 12 it gives you a quotient of $250. That is the average amount of money taxpayers “lend” to the federal government each month with no possibility of growth in interest or dividends.
To my way of thinking, that is very poor investing.
In a few years there will be an even more compelling reason to quit giving the federal government that annual interest-free loan. If the Supreme Court upholds the current version of the health care reform law, failure to purchase health insurance will be punishable by a fine.
Where do you suppose the money to pay that fine will be collected? If you responded, “It will come from my tax refund.” Go to the head of the class. That’s right, the IRS will deduct the fine from your refund if you cannot provide proof of health insurance.
A better way to pay taxes is to estimate how much you will owe on April 15 and then have the correct amount withheld periodically as it is earned. The goal is to try to be within $100 of you total tax liability when you file.
If your income is mainly derived from a paycheck that you receive from an employer, you can easily change your withholding by filing a new W-4. Just ask your employer for the form, or you can download one from the IRS Website: http://www.irs.gov and then turn it over to your payroll department when you complete it.
There is an easy way to calculate the optimum number of allowances on the W-4. Go to the Kiplinger Website:
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/withholding/index.php
and follow the easy steps. You might want to read the entire set of pages there as well, since Kiplinger gives excellent advice on the subject.
Even if you were to miscalculate (under-estimate) your optimum withholding amount, you can always file quarterly estimated taxes to catch up without penalty. The 1040ES form and instructions are also available at the IRS Website to help you.
The 1040ES is the same form you should use to file quarterly estimates if your income is from other sources, such as self-employment, pension, Social Security, interest or stock and bond dividends.
Now, back to that big refund of $3,000... There were approximately 221million taxpayers in the United States as of 2009. That includes a lot of families where only one tax return is filed for multiple citizens. Because of that, and because the earliest year I could find the actual number of individual tax returns filed was 2005 (134,372,678), I estimate the total number of returns in 2010 to be about 140 million. 112 million of those returns—4 out of 5—generated the average $3,000 refund last year. Simple arithmetic gives a total interest-free loan of $336 billion.
Let me write that out for you: $336,000,000,000. Even though those refunds go out every year, our system of tax withholding means that the federal government has a continuous use of that money—in effect, a gift that keeps on giving.
Wise up America! You can certainly use that extra $250 per month better than Uncle Sam can.
I cannot pass up this opportunity, which only comes at this time of year. It is, of course, “tax season.” For some it falls between January 31–about the earliest you can get copies of all the documents needed to file–and April 1. For others, it starts on April 1 and can run up to midnight on April 18, the last deadline this year to file taxes without penalties for dollars you owe to the IRS.
Last year the average federal tax refund passed the $3,000 level, a 10-percent increase from the 2008 tax year. An even more amazing statistic is that 4 out of 5 taxpayers will receive a refund this year.
Those people fall into the early file category above, because they want to get that huge lump-sum payment from Uncle Sam ASAP. (I’ll get back to that lump sum at the end of this column)
The latter group, those who file at the last minute, do so because they either owe some additional taxes, or they have a very modest refund coming. I am in that group, and I am going to tell you why we should all be in that 15-day filing window.
If you divide $3,000 by 12 it gives you a quotient of $250. That is the average amount of money taxpayers “lend” to the federal government each month with no possibility of growth in interest or dividends.
To my way of thinking, that is very poor investing.
In a few years there will be an even more compelling reason to quit giving the federal government that annual interest-free loan. If the Supreme Court upholds the current version of the health care reform law, failure to purchase health insurance will be punishable by a fine.
Where do you suppose the money to pay that fine will be collected? If you responded, “It will come from my tax refund.” Go to the head of the class. That’s right, the IRS will deduct the fine from your refund if you cannot provide proof of health insurance.
A better way to pay taxes is to estimate how much you will owe on April 15 and then have the correct amount withheld periodically as it is earned. The goal is to try to be within $100 of you total tax liability when you file.
If your income is mainly derived from a paycheck that you receive from an employer, you can easily change your withholding by filing a new W-4. Just ask your employer for the form, or you can download one from the IRS Website: http://www.irs.gov and then turn it over to your payroll department when you complete it.
There is an easy way to calculate the optimum number of allowances on the W-4. Go to the Kiplinger Website:
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/withholding/index.php
and follow the easy steps. You might want to read the entire set of pages there as well, since Kiplinger gives excellent advice on the subject.
Even if you were to miscalculate (under-estimate) your optimum withholding amount, you can always file quarterly estimated taxes to catch up without penalty. The 1040ES form and instructions are also available at the IRS Website to help you.
The 1040ES is the same form you should use to file quarterly estimates if your income is from other sources, such as self-employment, pension, Social Security, interest or stock and bond dividends.
Now, back to that big refund of $3,000... There were approximately 221million taxpayers in the United States as of 2009. That includes a lot of families where only one tax return is filed for multiple citizens. Because of that, and because the earliest year I could find the actual number of individual tax returns filed was 2005 (134,372,678), I estimate the total number of returns in 2010 to be about 140 million. 112 million of those returns—4 out of 5—generated the average $3,000 refund last year. Simple arithmetic gives a total interest-free loan of $336 billion.
Let me write that out for you: $336,000,000,000. Even though those refunds go out every year, our system of tax withholding means that the federal government has a continuous use of that money—in effect, a gift that keeps on giving.
Wise up America! You can certainly use that extra $250 per month better than Uncle Sam can.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The Bowl Glut
We’ve finally made it to the last football game of the 2010 season, The Super Bowl. It’s rather pathetic that we dragged it into the second month of 2011. The season used to last from around Christmas to about January 3rd, depending on which day the New Year fell. Only college football teams played in bowl games, and there we’re only a handful of them.
In case you haven’t taken the time to count the number of college bowl games, I have, and I can report that there were 35 of them. That means that 70 college football teams—along with their fans—traveled to some southern clime (sometimes) for about three days.
The students who attended let their parents foot the bill, but I suppose that is fairly cheap compared to the tuition and expenses paid to attend the college or university.
The southern clime used to be the rule for bowl games, but now that there are covered stadiums there could be a bowl played in Detroit, or Minneapolis, or even Indianapolis. Well, Minneapolis’ domed stadium is out of commission for a while after the heavy snow tore a huge hole in the roof, but you know what I mean. One of the bowls was played in Boise, Idaho—the open stadium with the dark blue turf—and that definitely is not a tropical paradise in December or any other time of the year.
About winning and losing... I actually did watch several of the games, at least through the first half. The trouble with a lot of them was that by the end of the first quarter, the game was already a blowout. Who, other than the diehard fan, cares to watch a game that ends with a score of 70-0?
When you have 70 teams in the bowls, some are genuine first-class winners, and some are a little suspect. Let’s face it, teams with any more than 2 losses in their season do not belong in a bowl game, but there aren’t 70 teams that can qualify with that record.
For years there was a cry for a college championship game, similar to the pro football Super Bowl to determine the REAL number 1 college team in the country. We finally got our wish a few years ago, and this year’s BCS Championship Game did seem to host the two teams that really deserved to be there – Auburn and Oregon. That game was played on a Monday night in Glendale, Arizona.
I watched the Tostitos BCS Championship up to the end of the third quarter and then set my DVR to record the end and went to bed. I got up Tuesday morning and watched the final quarter, though I had already inadvertently learned that Auburn had won. It was kind of strange that the game was actually won on a fluke play. That game was the only one that was even exciting to watch, and defense was a key factor for both teams.
Personally, I think that way too many teams get into playoffs in all sports, but that is just my opinion. Not many people agree, since playoffs are expanding all the time. Maybe it just goes along with the progressive mindset that “Everybody who plays the game is a winner.”
In case you haven’t taken the time to count the number of college bowl games, I have, and I can report that there were 35 of them. That means that 70 college football teams—along with their fans—traveled to some southern clime (sometimes) for about three days.
The students who attended let their parents foot the bill, but I suppose that is fairly cheap compared to the tuition and expenses paid to attend the college or university.
The southern clime used to be the rule for bowl games, but now that there are covered stadiums there could be a bowl played in Detroit, or Minneapolis, or even Indianapolis. Well, Minneapolis’ domed stadium is out of commission for a while after the heavy snow tore a huge hole in the roof, but you know what I mean. One of the bowls was played in Boise, Idaho—the open stadium with the dark blue turf—and that definitely is not a tropical paradise in December or any other time of the year.
About winning and losing... I actually did watch several of the games, at least through the first half. The trouble with a lot of them was that by the end of the first quarter, the game was already a blowout. Who, other than the diehard fan, cares to watch a game that ends with a score of 70-0?
When you have 70 teams in the bowls, some are genuine first-class winners, and some are a little suspect. Let’s face it, teams with any more than 2 losses in their season do not belong in a bowl game, but there aren’t 70 teams that can qualify with that record.
For years there was a cry for a college championship game, similar to the pro football Super Bowl to determine the REAL number 1 college team in the country. We finally got our wish a few years ago, and this year’s BCS Championship Game did seem to host the two teams that really deserved to be there – Auburn and Oregon. That game was played on a Monday night in Glendale, Arizona.
I watched the Tostitos BCS Championship up to the end of the third quarter and then set my DVR to record the end and went to bed. I got up Tuesday morning and watched the final quarter, though I had already inadvertently learned that Auburn had won. It was kind of strange that the game was actually won on a fluke play. That game was the only one that was even exciting to watch, and defense was a key factor for both teams.
Personally, I think that way too many teams get into playoffs in all sports, but that is just my opinion. Not many people agree, since playoffs are expanding all the time. Maybe it just goes along with the progressive mindset that “Everybody who plays the game is a winner.”
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Singing Valentines
Valentines Day is coming up on a Monday this year, February 14, and if you’re in a quandary about what to buy your wife or girlfriend, I have a suggestion for you. Buy her a Singing Valentine. If you’ve never bought a singing valentine for your wife, or girlfriend, or fiancé, or other significant loved one in your life, you don’t know what you’re missing.
I doubt that there is anything else you can do on Valentine Day that will equal the experience she will have when four tuxedo-clad men show up at her home or at her workplace, present a long-stem red rose and a card with your personal greeting on it and then sing two love songs to her.
Our quartet sang about 30 times last year, and the response was phenomenal. The ones we sang in the home were the most personal, and the tears flowed every time. But the ones we sang at the workplace, especially at schools, were the most fun, because our audience was larger, and the school children were so impressed.
We sang to women and men—that’s right, we’re gender neutral—and our audience included teenage girls, widows, mothers and daughters. We started at 7 AM and didn’t quit until 7 PM. Several others went on until 9 o’clock.
We were one of six quartets that circulated throughout the metropolitan area singing, and we presented 148 Singing Valentines. It wasn’t inexpensive for the senders, but I bet every one of them felt it was worth every penny.
If you would like to send a Singing Valentine to your sweetheart this year, most cities have the service available. You can usually place an order online or by phone. Just use the link http://singingvalentines.com/lookup.aspx to locate the service in your area. If you order early and you allow a four-hour window, you can probably get a discount. The extras, like having the presentation at your Valentine dinner at your favorite restaurant are a little extra money, but are always worth it.
So here it is fellas. If you are trying to come up with a good gift for Valentine Day, I guarantee that you cannot do any better than a Singing Valentine. If you don’t score big with your honey, it won’t be our fault.
Here are the lyrics to the two songs usually sung for the ladies:
Let Me Call You Sweetheart
Let Me Call You Sweetheart, I’m in love with you.
Let me hear you whisper that you love me too.
Keep the love light glowing in your eyes so true.
Let me call you sweetheart, I’m in love with you.
Heart Of My Heart
Heart of my heart, I love you.
Life would be naught without you.
Light of my life, my darling,
I love you... I love you.
I can forget you never.
From you I ne’er can sever.
Say you’ll be mine – forever.
I love you.
Now I ask you, “How can she resist?”
I doubt that there is anything else you can do on Valentine Day that will equal the experience she will have when four tuxedo-clad men show up at her home or at her workplace, present a long-stem red rose and a card with your personal greeting on it and then sing two love songs to her.
Our quartet sang about 30 times last year, and the response was phenomenal. The ones we sang in the home were the most personal, and the tears flowed every time. But the ones we sang at the workplace, especially at schools, were the most fun, because our audience was larger, and the school children were so impressed.
We sang to women and men—that’s right, we’re gender neutral—and our audience included teenage girls, widows, mothers and daughters. We started at 7 AM and didn’t quit until 7 PM. Several others went on until 9 o’clock.
We were one of six quartets that circulated throughout the metropolitan area singing, and we presented 148 Singing Valentines. It wasn’t inexpensive for the senders, but I bet every one of them felt it was worth every penny.
If you would like to send a Singing Valentine to your sweetheart this year, most cities have the service available. You can usually place an order online or by phone. Just use the link http://singingvalentines.com/lookup.aspx to locate the service in your area. If you order early and you allow a four-hour window, you can probably get a discount. The extras, like having the presentation at your Valentine dinner at your favorite restaurant are a little extra money, but are always worth it.
So here it is fellas. If you are trying to come up with a good gift for Valentine Day, I guarantee that you cannot do any better than a Singing Valentine. If you don’t score big with your honey, it won’t be our fault.
Here are the lyrics to the two songs usually sung for the ladies:
Let Me Call You Sweetheart
Let Me Call You Sweetheart, I’m in love with you.
Let me hear you whisper that you love me too.
Keep the love light glowing in your eyes so true.
Let me call you sweetheart, I’m in love with you.
Heart Of My Heart
Heart of my heart, I love you.
Life would be naught without you.
Light of my life, my darling,
I love you... I love you.
I can forget you never.
From you I ne’er can sever.
Say you’ll be mine – forever.
I love you.
Now I ask you, “How can she resist?”
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Misplaced Heroism
As usual, I was trying to choose from among three columns I had written for this week, when another topic screamed for attention. That topic is the main news story of the past two weeks, the assassination attempt and murder that took place in Arizona. You might think my title is strange, but bear with me and it will make sense.
I want to focus on just one very positive aspect of the incident that, as far as I can determine, has not been addressed in all the media coverage. There were two armed individuals at that shopping center.
Jared Loughner, the accused murderer was armed with a weapon that he not only shouldn’t have had, but that was also equipped with a 30-round clip. He used his weapon to murder six people, wound thirteen more, and unleash a perfect storm of anti-gun rhetoric from all corners of the country.
The other armed individual was Joe Zamudio, a man who possesses and carries a pistol with him legally. He was in a Walgreen store at the time of the shooting, and came out of the store to see the struggle to subdue the gunman already in progress.
Mr. Zamudio admitted that he had his hand on the butt of his pistol, and saw a person with gun in hand. However, before drawing his gun, Joe ran over and disarmed the person forcibly. He only learned later that the person he disarmed had just taken the gun from Mr. Loughner. Then, when Mr. Zamudio learned who the real villain was, he used his considerable weight to pin him to the ground until the police arrived.
What we have here is a perfect example of the difference between illegal (Loughner) and legal (Zamudio) gun holders. The one acted impulsively and criminally, while the other acted logically and legally.
I refer to Mr. Loughner’s gun as “illegal” because he should not have been able to purchase it in Arizona or any other state. He was a known drug user and exhibited the type of behavior that should have set off alarms during the federal checks when he bought his first gun, a shotgun, and later the Glock 40mm that he used in the shootings.
In this case, the lack of communication was between the military and the ATF, which is even worse, since both are federal branches of Homeland Security.
Nearly ten years after 9/11 we still do not have open lines of communication between our local, state and federal agencies. And we are so handcuffed by political correctness that we don’t report or record suspect behavior for follow up action.
Mr. Zamudio was asked in an interview whether or not he would have used his gun. He answered—and this is critical—that, “Yes, I would have shot him. I would have shot the man holding the gun.” Had he not been a trained and responsible gun owner, he probably would have shot the innocent person who had just disarmed the shooter.
Mr. Zamudio is being lauded as a hero, but I think the credit he deserves is misplaced. Yes, he did help to detain the assailant, but he arrived after Jared Loughner had already been disarmed. His true heroism is in the fact that he exercised restraint and disarmed the gun holder, rather than shooting. That is what I believe was heroic on his part. It took a lot of courage to do that.
I’m going to go a step further and state that I believe Mr. Zamudio is a living, walking advertisement for 2nd Amendment gun rights. No law passed by state or federal government is going to prevent people like Jared Lee Loughner from obtaining and using firearms, but it might prevent a Joe Zamudio from intervening in protecting himself and others around him.
I wish the fools who are trying to find someone else to share the blame in this tragic and senseless massacre, and who now want to use it to promote their anti-gun agenda, would wake up to the reality. A responsible armed citizen is no threat to anyone except those who would harm him or someone close to him—or her, for that matter. Women have 2nd Amendment rights as well as men, and should exercise them.
I want to focus on just one very positive aspect of the incident that, as far as I can determine, has not been addressed in all the media coverage. There were two armed individuals at that shopping center.
Jared Loughner, the accused murderer was armed with a weapon that he not only shouldn’t have had, but that was also equipped with a 30-round clip. He used his weapon to murder six people, wound thirteen more, and unleash a perfect storm of anti-gun rhetoric from all corners of the country.
The other armed individual was Joe Zamudio, a man who possesses and carries a pistol with him legally. He was in a Walgreen store at the time of the shooting, and came out of the store to see the struggle to subdue the gunman already in progress.
Mr. Zamudio admitted that he had his hand on the butt of his pistol, and saw a person with gun in hand. However, before drawing his gun, Joe ran over and disarmed the person forcibly. He only learned later that the person he disarmed had just taken the gun from Mr. Loughner. Then, when Mr. Zamudio learned who the real villain was, he used his considerable weight to pin him to the ground until the police arrived.
What we have here is a perfect example of the difference between illegal (Loughner) and legal (Zamudio) gun holders. The one acted impulsively and criminally, while the other acted logically and legally.
I refer to Mr. Loughner’s gun as “illegal” because he should not have been able to purchase it in Arizona or any other state. He was a known drug user and exhibited the type of behavior that should have set off alarms during the federal checks when he bought his first gun, a shotgun, and later the Glock 40mm that he used in the shootings.
In this case, the lack of communication was between the military and the ATF, which is even worse, since both are federal branches of Homeland Security.
Nearly ten years after 9/11 we still do not have open lines of communication between our local, state and federal agencies. And we are so handcuffed by political correctness that we don’t report or record suspect behavior for follow up action.
Mr. Zamudio was asked in an interview whether or not he would have used his gun. He answered—and this is critical—that, “Yes, I would have shot him. I would have shot the man holding the gun.” Had he not been a trained and responsible gun owner, he probably would have shot the innocent person who had just disarmed the shooter.
Mr. Zamudio is being lauded as a hero, but I think the credit he deserves is misplaced. Yes, he did help to detain the assailant, but he arrived after Jared Loughner had already been disarmed. His true heroism is in the fact that he exercised restraint and disarmed the gun holder, rather than shooting. That is what I believe was heroic on his part. It took a lot of courage to do that.
I’m going to go a step further and state that I believe Mr. Zamudio is a living, walking advertisement for 2nd Amendment gun rights. No law passed by state or federal government is going to prevent people like Jared Lee Loughner from obtaining and using firearms, but it might prevent a Joe Zamudio from intervening in protecting himself and others around him.
I wish the fools who are trying to find someone else to share the blame in this tragic and senseless massacre, and who now want to use it to promote their anti-gun agenda, would wake up to the reality. A responsible armed citizen is no threat to anyone except those who would harm him or someone close to him—or her, for that matter. Women have 2nd Amendment rights as well as men, and should exercise them.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Our Never-ending Oil Dependence
We opened 2011 with the highest gas prices ever, the average being $3.06 per gallon, and yet we also have a seven-year moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off our east and west coasts. We also have a permanent ban on drilling in ANWR.
The good news is that we have a petroleum supply within our borders that is estimated to be more than the whole of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined.
The bad news is we are prohibited from extracting it.
When will we get past the myths and rhetoric and learn the truth about ANWR?
1. The Artic National Wildlife Refuge is described (by people who have never been there) as a pristine wilderness full of natural beauty.
It is no such thing! Most of it is a flat and frozen wasteland. To decry the exploration and exploitation of the petroleum in ANWR because “we need to save it—the refuge, not the oil—for future generations” is ridiculous, too. Who in their right mind would go there as a tourist? The only way to see it would be from the air, and few of us are willing or able to afford a plane or helicopter ride that would require a flight of over 500 miles and use quite a lot of fossil fuel in the bargain. There are few animals up there to see, as they only migrate seasonally, and then only for a few months. It is too cold up there even for the caribou most of the year.
How do I know this? I admit that I haven’t been up there—I wouldn’t care to go—but I have seen pictures of ANWR and I’ve also watched a couple of the shows on television about it. I notice that the video is taken from the air, except for a few occasions when the crew gets on the ground for a short period. I surmise that humans don’t do well in that climate out in the open. Perhaps Al Gore’s global warming theory will kick in and warm the arctic up some, but I seriously doubt that.
2. Another argument against drilling in ANWR is that there is a finite amount of oil up there that would probably only last six months.
I suppose that is another of those myths that goes along with the idea proposed back in the 1970s that we would run out of petroleum worldwide within ten years. There has only been a cursory estimate of the oil in ANWR with no follow up exploration so far. Let’s face it, nobody has been allowed to make an accurate assessment of the petroleum reserves to date. However, every prior oil field that has been opened up has proven to exceed original estimates. I have read that there might be enough oil in that region to last us for over one hundred years. I suspect that the true reserves lie somewhere between the two estimates, but no oil company would risk all the capital required to open ANWR unless they thought it was going to be a long-term venture.
3. The drilling is supposed to be unsightly and hazardous to the wildlife.
My wife and I have driven through the Permian Basin just west of Midland-Odessa many times. I have to admit that while it is an impressive sight to see thousands of oil rigs pumping oil from horizon to horizon, it is rather unsightly too. I did note that every time I go through the Permian Basin, I see some new wells being drilled, and they have been drilling there for over one hundred years already. Funny that the “black gold” just keeps on flowing, isn’t it? I also noticed that there is little wildlife out there, and human habitation is mostly non-existent. There are only a few scattered towns in the basin, and they aren’t very populous.
Regardless of the blight on the landscape in the Permian Basin, the ANWR would have no such sights. Modern technology allows drilling multiple wells from one platform. A one-acre sight could be used to develop and drill several square miles of the refuge. There would be no ugly pumps, and the oil would be piped immediately out of ANWR to a port or down into the Alaskan Pipeline—the latter is obviously the more preferable transport.
Oh yes, one other benefit might accrue. You may recall that the Alaskan Pipeline, which was supposed to be detrimental to the migrating caribou turned out to be a magnet for them instead. They apparently liked the heat it generated. Extension of the pipeline to accommodate the oil coming out of ANWR would probably also attract the caribou, so they might be better off for having it there.
We might be able to cut back on our use of fossil fuels—a total misnomer in itself--but it will take a long time to do that. We will be dependent on oil for many years, and we cannot afford to rely on OPEC anymore. We must develop our own resources until we are able to convert to other renewable sources of energy. ANWR figures heavily in that plan, and it is time we got to work there.
Shale oil from deep beneath the Rocky Mountains is also a future source, but the environmentalists are already demonizing the oil companies for their supposed use of toxic chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from the shale. Whether true or not, there are seeds of doubt sown to destroy that industry before it ever gets started.
In the short term, we will have to continue to tap the wells in the continental United States and off our coasts. ANWR is at best 8-10 years from the first oil production even if we start exploring and developing the fields today. Our best supply is from the existing fields, mostly off the coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Regarding that BP oil spill last summer, the only lasting damage seems to be the moratorium on drilling imposed by our president. That is not only preventing us from keeping oil and gas prices down, but is also adding to the continuing unemployment for all the workers engaged in the drilling and subsidiary businesses.
Our existing oil wells are our best means of getting oil prices back down, since it will take years to develop the wells in ANWR. We are the only oil-producing country in the Western Hemisphere that is not currently drilling off our coasts, so it isn’t as though the ecosystem isn’t already at risk. If that’s what we’re worried about, our technology is superior to that of those other countries, so there is small chance we will harm the Gulf of the oceans further.
We started our push for oil independence during the Nixon Administration 45 years ago, and we are worse off today than we were way back then. When will we ever do the right thing?
The good news is that we have a petroleum supply within our borders that is estimated to be more than the whole of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined.
The bad news is we are prohibited from extracting it.
When will we get past the myths and rhetoric and learn the truth about ANWR?
1. The Artic National Wildlife Refuge is described (by people who have never been there) as a pristine wilderness full of natural beauty.
It is no such thing! Most of it is a flat and frozen wasteland. To decry the exploration and exploitation of the petroleum in ANWR because “we need to save it—the refuge, not the oil—for future generations” is ridiculous, too. Who in their right mind would go there as a tourist? The only way to see it would be from the air, and few of us are willing or able to afford a plane or helicopter ride that would require a flight of over 500 miles and use quite a lot of fossil fuel in the bargain. There are few animals up there to see, as they only migrate seasonally, and then only for a few months. It is too cold up there even for the caribou most of the year.
How do I know this? I admit that I haven’t been up there—I wouldn’t care to go—but I have seen pictures of ANWR and I’ve also watched a couple of the shows on television about it. I notice that the video is taken from the air, except for a few occasions when the crew gets on the ground for a short period. I surmise that humans don’t do well in that climate out in the open. Perhaps Al Gore’s global warming theory will kick in and warm the arctic up some, but I seriously doubt that.
2. Another argument against drilling in ANWR is that there is a finite amount of oil up there that would probably only last six months.
I suppose that is another of those myths that goes along with the idea proposed back in the 1970s that we would run out of petroleum worldwide within ten years. There has only been a cursory estimate of the oil in ANWR with no follow up exploration so far. Let’s face it, nobody has been allowed to make an accurate assessment of the petroleum reserves to date. However, every prior oil field that has been opened up has proven to exceed original estimates. I have read that there might be enough oil in that region to last us for over one hundred years. I suspect that the true reserves lie somewhere between the two estimates, but no oil company would risk all the capital required to open ANWR unless they thought it was going to be a long-term venture.
3. The drilling is supposed to be unsightly and hazardous to the wildlife.
My wife and I have driven through the Permian Basin just west of Midland-Odessa many times. I have to admit that while it is an impressive sight to see thousands of oil rigs pumping oil from horizon to horizon, it is rather unsightly too. I did note that every time I go through the Permian Basin, I see some new wells being drilled, and they have been drilling there for over one hundred years already. Funny that the “black gold” just keeps on flowing, isn’t it? I also noticed that there is little wildlife out there, and human habitation is mostly non-existent. There are only a few scattered towns in the basin, and they aren’t very populous.
Regardless of the blight on the landscape in the Permian Basin, the ANWR would have no such sights. Modern technology allows drilling multiple wells from one platform. A one-acre sight could be used to develop and drill several square miles of the refuge. There would be no ugly pumps, and the oil would be piped immediately out of ANWR to a port or down into the Alaskan Pipeline—the latter is obviously the more preferable transport.
Oh yes, one other benefit might accrue. You may recall that the Alaskan Pipeline, which was supposed to be detrimental to the migrating caribou turned out to be a magnet for them instead. They apparently liked the heat it generated. Extension of the pipeline to accommodate the oil coming out of ANWR would probably also attract the caribou, so they might be better off for having it there.
We might be able to cut back on our use of fossil fuels—a total misnomer in itself--but it will take a long time to do that. We will be dependent on oil for many years, and we cannot afford to rely on OPEC anymore. We must develop our own resources until we are able to convert to other renewable sources of energy. ANWR figures heavily in that plan, and it is time we got to work there.
Shale oil from deep beneath the Rocky Mountains is also a future source, but the environmentalists are already demonizing the oil companies for their supposed use of toxic chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from the shale. Whether true or not, there are seeds of doubt sown to destroy that industry before it ever gets started.
In the short term, we will have to continue to tap the wells in the continental United States and off our coasts. ANWR is at best 8-10 years from the first oil production even if we start exploring and developing the fields today. Our best supply is from the existing fields, mostly off the coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Regarding that BP oil spill last summer, the only lasting damage seems to be the moratorium on drilling imposed by our president. That is not only preventing us from keeping oil and gas prices down, but is also adding to the continuing unemployment for all the workers engaged in the drilling and subsidiary businesses.
Our existing oil wells are our best means of getting oil prices back down, since it will take years to develop the wells in ANWR. We are the only oil-producing country in the Western Hemisphere that is not currently drilling off our coasts, so it isn’t as though the ecosystem isn’t already at risk. If that’s what we’re worried about, our technology is superior to that of those other countries, so there is small chance we will harm the Gulf of the oceans further.
We started our push for oil independence during the Nixon Administration 45 years ago, and we are worse off today than we were way back then. When will we ever do the right thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)