Skeletons In My Closet

My nephew is a genealogy fanatic.  I hesitate to label him an extremist, but he is kind of like my grand-puppy, Abby, a ferocious (yeah, sure) daschund who gets her doggy toy in her mouth, shakes it around furiously and chews on it until she breaks that squeaker.  Dan just loves to research names and lineages back through history.

If Dan is to be believed—and I admit that he is really good at his hobby—we have some pretty well known and famous personages in our family tree.  I’ll get to that in a moment.

One of the factors that got Dan started in genealogy is that my great aunt, whom we always called Grandma because she adopted my mother after Mom's biological mother died in childbirth, was descended from one of the so-called Salem Witches.  Of course, it was later revealed that none of them were witches, but that didn’t prevent them being hanged for the alleged crime.

Grandma McKeever even wrote a short book about the Salem Witch trials. I have a copy of it, and it is pretty scholarly for a book written by a self-taught lady in her late seventies when she penned it.

Dan got the bug several years ago and started asking all kinds of questions of his mother and aunts and uncles.  But in general, Dan did a lot of online research and library work. He has now taken our family line all the way back to the Eleventh Century. In the process he has found some knights and quite a few others whose names you would recognize if you took your world history in school at all seriously.

As an example of the work Dan has accomplished, he informed me last week that my 21st great grandfather was named Ralph deCromwell, who held the title Lord of Tattersall and lived from 1342-1398.  If that name seems vaguely familiar, yes, he was related to Oliver Cromwell who is also found somewhere in the tree, though probably not a direct ancestor of ours.

Some other names you might recognize are General John Hathorn, a Revolutionary War general and related to Judge Hathorn of the Salem Witch Trial fame.  And of course that brings up the name of a famous writer, Nathaniel Hawthorne, who added a couple of letters to his surname to escape the stigma of being related to the hanging judge.

Now I cannot swear to the accuracy of all this, but I do know that Dan is a dedicated and very creative researcher, so I tend to believe his results.  Moreover, what comes to mind is that we really are probably all related to one another in some fashion all the way back to Adam and Eve, or at least to Noah if the story of the ark is to be believed. 

In another stunning and convoluted explanation, Dan used a whole bunch of big numbers to arrive at the conclusion that our ancestors at any given time in earth’s history far outnumber the population of the earth at that time.  Which, I suppose, proves my theory that we are really all related, but I don’t have any idea how the difference in race comes into that equation. If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad, Bro’, we all be bruddahs and sistahs unner 'da skin.

So that begs the age-old question, “Why can’t we all just get along, children?”

Do We Celebrate The Wrong Independence Day?

This is a repeat of the column I ran at this time last year.  I cannot ignore our coming holiday even though I already had written a column. So this is a week when I write two columns, one for everyone, and one for those who won’t be “offended” by a political opinion. You can read it right below this one if you want to see what a conservative thinks about recent events. I hope you will.

We in America all receive numerous email messages around this time of year relating to our celebration of the 4^th of July, or Independence Day.  I received one this week that stood out, not because it was more patriotic than the others, but because it seemed to contradict them.

The email message was titled, “John Adams writing about the 4^th of July.” Of course, John Adams, our second president was a very important figure among the Founding Fathers. Therefore, any of his writings had to be important and sacrosanct.

Here is the exact quote from a letter to Adams’ wife, Abigail:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not. (The Book of Abigail and John: Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, Harvard University Press, 1975, 142).

I don’t know about you, but I did a literal double take when I saw that date at the beginning of the quote. Why would John Adams consider July 2, 1776 to be our Independence Day? So I did some research and here is what I found.

It turns out that the above quote was taken from a letter John Adams wrote on July 3^rd, after the Continental Congress voted in the affirmative on a resolution by Richard Henry Lee calling for independence from Great Britain. That vote took place the day before on July 2^nd. 

Here is his resolution of July 2, 1776:

Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

After the vote tally, a committee was appointed to draft the actual statement.  It consisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston. They in turn appointed Jefferson to draft the document.

While John Adams was penning his letter to his wife, Abigail, Thomas Jefferson was penning a more important document that would eclipse the events of July 2^nd.

He was drafting the Declaration of Independence, which he presented the following day for reading and signing.  Thus July 4^th became the true day of independence. 

Richard Henry Lee, the person who first wrote and proposed independence, wasn’t even present two days later when the Jefferson document was signed.  He had gone back to his home in Virginia. He did, however, sign later.  Eventually he became the president of the Second Continental Congress and later a senator from Virginia in the United States Senate. His name has never been closely associated with the Declaration of Independence and he faded into obscurity in history.

As to the true date of our independence, I can understand why it became July 4^th instead of July 2^nd.  It’s a lot harder to say “The Second of July” than it is “The Fourth of July.” The latter expression just kind of rolls off the tongue.

So now you’ve had a history lesson that I hope will motivate you to think about the true meaning of Independence Day and how far we’ve come from that fateful day 236 years ago.

God bless America!

Brilliance at the Supreme Court

Now that the Supreme Court has finally ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) there is a great deal of either jubilation in the streets or hand wringing and grief.

When I learned of the decision I was one of the latter and, frankly, it ruined my whole day.  I was even coining a new term for the SCOTUS, the Kow-towing Kangaroo Kourt. Yes, that translates to the acronym KKK, but it signifies a different kind of Klan.

But then I started using the right side of my brain—not right in the political sense, but right in the literal sense—to parse the true meaning of the ruling.  After all, one of my heroes, Chief Justice John Roberts, had just apparently come down on the other side of the aisle in joining the four liberal justices on the court.

Here is what I’ve determined based on all the facts I now have.

The Honorable John Roberts just turned the election season on its head!

Here is why I opine that result:

1. One of the key campaign issues for President Obama was going to be the mean-spirited Supreme Court that took away your affordable health care and he, Obama, needs a second term to change the balance of the court. That issue is now a dead one. Justice Roberts upheld the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court Ruling clearly specifies the mandate is a tax, which is exactly what President Obama claimed it is not.  Therefore, upholding Obamacare as constitutional means that Democrats have just levied one of the most onerous taxes in history on all Americans, estimated—and we all know that Federal estimates are always low—at two-and-a-half trillion dollars.
3. Mitt Romney now has a whole new campaign platform to run on, repeal of the new law. He can also now accuse Obama of going back on his promises and raising everyone’s taxes.  Is it mere coincidence that Romney’s campaign fund gained over four million dollars on Thursday after the Supreme Court ruling?  I think not!
4. Democrats can no longer use the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to force a mandate for Americans to buy anything.  I’m not being racist here when I use the cliché, “call a spade a spade.”  Justice Roberts made it perfectly clear that the mandate is a TAX.  

So, if you were, like I was, saddened and disheartened by the turn of events on Thursday, take heart.  This is just the beginning of a new chapter.  A lot has changed in the past week, and it isn’t all bad news.  We still have four months to take back this country.

Oh, for those of you who are Democrats and/or Obama supporters, I don’t apologize for informing you of the fight you have ahead of you.  If it energizes you in the opposite direction to read this, then you too have benefited from it. 

Don’t worry. Be happy!

The New Green Technology - Part 2

A few weeks ago I published the first part of this column.  In it, I introduced you to two new technologies that could make our obscene use of ethanol unnecessary: natural gas engines—either conversions or replacement—and use of “pure” gasoline with no ethanol in it.

One of those ideas appealed to me, since I was preparing to go on a 6,000-mile road trip, so I decided to run a test and learn whether or not the pure gasoline would give me better mileage while reducing the cost of fueling.

Since I already knew that our 2005 Toyota Sienna averages 25 miles-per-gallon on road trips using the ethanol-laced gasoline, I went online and found gas stations along the route that provide the pure gas as an alternative.  I knew that is would probably be a little more expensive than the ethanol, but I was willing to pay extra to see how well it performed.

I started by using as much of the old gas as possible before I filled up with the pure gas. The tank was close to empty when I fueled up that first time just prior to the start of our trip. I continued to use only pure gas for about half of the trip, but I learned something else that caused me to alter my fuel choice.

It seemed that, regardless of my use or non-use of the ethanol gasoline, the only factor that changed my mileage was the level of octane in the gas.  Those pumps that gave me 85-octane caused mileage to dip below 25 mpg, while those in the 87-89 range provided a boost in mileage by 2-3 miles per gallon.

Most stations sell 87-octane as their regular gas and 89-octane as the mid-grade, while the premium is usually 91-octane.  The price difference per gallon averages about ten cents per gallon between grades.  Where I got the worst mileage, 23 mpg, was after I fueled up with 85-octane gasoline even if it was pure, unadulterated gas. With 87-octane pure gas, I got around 27 mpg, and 89-octane gave me over 28 mpg.

Since I was getting about 10-percent better mileage with the higher grades and I was only paying ten cents additional for each gallon, that worked out to a huge savings. My average of $3.50 versus $3.60 is only a difference of 3-percent. That means you get a three-fold advantage in using the higher grade of gasoline regardless of added ethanol.

Now let’s put that into a practical example.  Ten gallons of gas costing $35 will keep me on the road for 250 miles.  If I pay $36 and buy a higher grade I won’t have to refill for about 275 miles.  It is like getting an extra gallon of gas for $1. 

I don’t know how all this works out for the premium blend, because I never bought any of that, but if it has the same effect, it would mean paying $37 and driving around 300 miles before filling up again—another gallon for just a buck.

I invite you to try this out for yourself, although you probably won’t be able to buy the pure gas in any but the lowest octane. You’ll have to buy the ethanol if you want the higher octane grades.  It then becomes a case of which you prefer, better mileage or a cooler burning fuel, because the ethanol-added gasoline does burn a lot hotter and does cause more engine wear.

Now if we could just get the oil companies to quit mixing the ethanol in and sell all grades as pure gas, it would make a big difference in both mileage and engine wear to our advantage...  Well, I can dream.

More Unintended Consequences

I have an incident to report to you that occurred on our recent road trip.  In fact, we wouldn’t have witnessed it had I not left that Kindle reader at the gas station in Rawlins, Wyoming. 

On our return to Rawlins we decided to top up the tank again for the trip over to Salt Lake City.  When we pulled in to the station there was a young lady there pumping gas at another pump. Unbeknownst to us, she was a novice at pumping her own gas and it was critical to the event that transpired.

There are only two states that I know for certain do not allow customers to pump their own gasoline, Oregon and New Jersey. You may know of others, but those two are the only ones I can attest to. The reason is probably altruistic, in that it allows for the employment of hundreds, if not thousands, of attendants to service vehicles at the pump.

However, there are consequences when the citizens of those states travel to other states that don’t have those restrictions and where they must pump their own gasoline.

The girl who was pumping gas was from Oregon.  She must have pumped her own gas somewhere prior to her purchase at Rawlins, but was apparently still learning how to do it.  That became a problem very quickly.

The woman pulled the gas handle out of her fill pipe while still depressing the trigger, because when it came out it was spewing gasoline.  She got quite a bit on herself and had to go into the restroom to wash up and (I hope) change her dress. Meanwhile, the station manager took a bucket of water with some kind of additive to soak up the spill,

My wife used the restroom after the girl had departed and she said it smelled strongly of gasoline.  That poor woman was embarrassed and probably frightened half to death by the experience. How easy it would have been for her to immolated herself with an errant spark or other ignition source!

It occurs to me that the ban on self-service in states like Oregon and New Jersey is not conducive to safety.  People who do not have the opportunity to learn how to pump gas are at extreme disadvantage and danger when they find themselves in a state where there is no attendant to pump for you.  Maybe it keeps more people employed, but it has unintended consequences for travelers who live in those states.

The incident I witnessed and described could very easily have resulted in a fatality and possibly other casualties, myself and my wife included.  That would have been especially true if she were the type of ignorant person who uses a cell phone while pumping gas.

Potpourri

Isn't It Ironic?
 
The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to announce that it is distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever. 

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, posts signs in all our national parks requesting us "Please do not feed the animals because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves. " 

Isn’t there an equal danger that the humans on food stamps might also grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves?

Let’s see if I have this right…

·        J. P. Morgan lost $2-billion for its clients, but it reported an overall profit.  And this requires a taxpayer-paid Congressional investigation?

·        Bain Capital closed the doors of some of its takeover companies while laying off several thousand employees, but it also salvaged far more of its takeover targets and saved or created thousands more jobs. And this requires a taxpayer-paid Congressional investigation?

·        Facebook (FB) went public with an IPO based at $38/share, but in the first few days of trading the price dropped by about 18-percent. And this requires a taxpayer-paid Congressional investigation?

·        Our federal government has lost up to $1.5-trillion of taxpayer-financed stimulus money. And this doesn’t require a taxpayer-paid Congressional investigation?

Well, at least they’re saving some of our taxpayer dollars.  Yeah, that’s about right.

 

I keep hearing talk show finance gurus talk about how to get “the cheapest cell hone service”.  Well, I stumbled upon one that I believe is cheaper than theirs.

When I went on my Portland trip in the fall of 2010 I needed a cell phone that I could use just for that trip and then dispose of it.  Consequently, I bought a little cell phone from my friendly Kroger store. It had no contract, cost only $30 and came with 100 free minutes.  The provider was I-Wireless, a company that doesn’t have its own towers, but uses whatever tower is available.  Therefore, the coverage is pretty much nationwide.

After I completed the trip I still had lots of minutes left, so I held on to the phone.  And then the next time we went shopping at Kroger I received a text message that my recent purchase had gained me 20 free minutes.  That gave me the idea that I might as well keep the phone.

Future trips to the Kroger earned me more and more minutes until I now have over 160 of them, and they never expire. When I buy a phone card (at Kroger) to pay the monthly $5 service fee I get additional points as well.

The long and short of it is that I have a cell phone with non-expiring minutes for the ridiculous price of $5 per month.  And so far I’ve never had to pay for a single minute of usage even though the rate is supposed to be $.10/minute.

If you can find a less expensive cell phone service than that let me know.

I’ve been wondering lately why we make such a fuss over pregnant women drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.  I read a novel recently where the heroine was preggers, and she kept facing a moral dilemma where she wanted a drink or a smoke, but she was conflicted and never did either. It really irritated me!

Women gained status in the Twentieth Century that they had never enjoyed before, and many of them celebrated their newfound freedom by taking up habits of smoking and drinking along with the men. (Not that they hadn’t ever done it before, but unless they wanted a bad reputation they usually did those things in private)

I have no medical training and certainly don’t consider myself qualified to make medical prognoses. However, I do know that for most of our history pregnant women have done things that, in excess, could harm the fetus.  In moderation those same actions are likely totally harmless to the fetus.

How many of us, born during the middle of the last century, are perfectly normal even though our mothers may have had the occasional glass of wine or beer or even, God forbid, a mixed drink?  How many had mothers who smoked? Were you born with a predilection for drinking or smoking because of it?

You would think that with all of the feminist organizations in just this country alone, we would not have such a huge stigmatism on drinking and smoking during pregnancy.

I have an endorsement for a product I used last week. 

I’ve had a sore on my right earlobe for over two years. It just wouldn’t heal, and it kept scabbing or bleeding.  It itched and caused me to worry it frequently, which I know was counterproductive to healing. I tried all kinds of salves and lotions, bandages, and plain old air-drying.  Nothing worked!

When we get a sore like that we tend to think “skin cancer” or some other deadly malady, but I was reluctant to seek treatment from my doctor, even though he knew about it and would ask about it on my office visits.

Last week my wife bought a small tube of Eucerin skin cream and started swabbing it on the sore 2-3 times a day. We started with a small bandage to cover it, but graduated to just coating it and leaving the covering off.

In less than five days the scab was gone and by the end of the week you couldn’t tell there had ever been any problem.  The skin was a little red, but even that is fading now.

If you ever have the same problem, be sure to try Eucerin. It is amazing stuff!

Modern Conservation

I was in a public restroom in one of those interstate rest areas recently with a busload of teenagers and I overheard one boy say to another, “Shun the paper towels and save a tree.”

My first reaction was, how thoughtful of him.  But then I reconsidered, because that cliché is being drilled into our kids’ thinking, and it is not necessarily accurate.  I wasn’t quick enough to speak my second thought, but it did get me to thinking about it in light of our present economy and the overall indoctrination of today’s youth.

The paper industry, and the lumbering industry that supports it are both very earth-friendly.  Big companies like Weyerhauser and International paper employ methods to recycle and to replenish the forests.  Why wouldn’t they? Lumber is a crop, and just like any other crop, it has to be planted, nurtured and harvested with a future crop replacing the one we use.

The myth that our forests are clear-cut is just that, a myth. At least in this country it is. For every tree that is cut down, another two or three are planted in the same land, and they are cared for to ensure that there will be a future crop, albeit the cycle is not an annual one like there is with the food crops.

The fact that new forests are being planted to renew the product cycle is evident to anyone who takes the time to travel to the places in America where the lumber industry practices.  And those replanted forests provide jobs for many more people than those who harvest the trees.

For every lumberjack, the brawny brute we picture as the “culprit” in killing our forests, there are probably three others whose work is to develop new breeds of fast-growing trees, planting and inspecting the new growth, and determining where more trees can be planted and harvested to keep the soil and the ecosystem healthy.

Here is another example of Weyerhauser’s earth-friendly stance.  When Mount St Helens erupted in May of 1980 it completely destroyed every tree within 17-miles of the volcano.  You can still drive up to the viewpoint to the east of the mountain and see some of the fallen trees.  You know they were blown over by the volcanic explosion because the trunks all face away from Mount St Helens.

Driving up to the Johnston memorial viewing overlook from the west you won’t see as much of the fallen timber until you get to the parking lot. The rangers left some of those fallen trees so that visitors could see how devastating the volcano was.  However, most of the trees have long since been cleared and the ground replanted with a forest of noble fir trees.  That extensive forest was planted by Weyerhauser, and most of it was done free of charge. There are signs all along the highway stating the year each stand was planted.

Have you ever seen or heard a news report about a forest fire on the property of the large lumber companies like Weyerhauser or Georgia Pacific?  I haven’t, and do you know why it is unlikely that you ever will see such a report?  Because those companies not only plant the huge forests, but they also keep any undergrowth cleared so that there isn’t any kindling for a fire to start and spread. The big fires you read about in Arizona, California and yes, even in Yellowstone and Mesa Verde National Parks were started on the ground and fed by that undergrowth that builds when the environmentalist activists prohibit any clearing.

The next time you have occasion to blame the lumber industry for clear-cutting our precious forests, remember this column.  Better yet. Plan a trip to Washington State and see for yourself the wonderful work that those “mean lumber companies” really do.