Labor unions are organizing to patrol the polls come Election Day.  Obama’s Attorney General Holder will probably exercise the same safeguards that he used in dismissing the charges of black thugs videotaped threatening potential voters with clubs in the last election.

The latest move in Obama’s Attorney General, Mr. Holder’s, anti-Arizona drive has been to file a law suit against the State of Arizona for requiring immigrants to show their green card when applying for work as proof that they have a legal right to work in the United States. Our government also has a law that permits the government to fine any company employing an illegal immigrant. It is a lose/lose situation. The employer who requires proof can be fined, the employer who hires illegals can be fined. What next, President Obama?

I have a suggestion that Attorney General Holder might approve. Sue any district that has police arrest persons who threaten voters at the polls. It makes as much sense as suing those who require evidence of a legal right to work before employing. 

With Holder and Obama’s other “Czars” making up new laws as they go, why do we need a Congress? We could save billions by closing the House of Representatives and the Senate.  That would erase the national debt. They are not necessary for Obama’s rule anyway.

Obama took a short vacation on Labor Day. His week long vacation the week or so before must have tired him. Sheila says that the more vacations he takes the better off our nation is, but I argue that Holder and his “Czars” are doing all the damage possible in his absence.

I have read that Muslim mosques have suspicions that FBI agents are attending some of their services. Let me state, emphatically, that neither I nor any other member of our Cumberland Presbyterian Church in Charlotte will object to the presence of an FBI agent. In fact as many can come as they wish and bring their families. We would hope, of course, that they would contribute when the collection plate was passed around, but that is not essential. 

In fact, Sheila and I, at her demand, have attended many different churches in our wanderings. These have included a Mormon church and Black churches (where we were noticeable.) Not a single church objected to me (other than the one where I taught Sunday School for several years) and neither would they have objected to an FBI agent, one or more. The only reason for a church objecting to an FBI agent would be if the church was using its “service” to promote and/or plan activities which were against the law. In that case, they are not “churches” and should not be treated as such. They are criminal activities.

After much consideration, I believe I have discovered the difference between jihadists, radical Muslims and moderate Muslims. Jihadists are those who believe that sacrificing their own lives in order to kill others sends them to Heaven where lots of virgins await their coming. It doesn’t appear to matter whom they kill: Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, brands of Muslims other than their own, old people, children, women, men – anyone will suffice to get them their reward. (Actually, so many virgins have been used up recently that their heavenly reward may consist of re-cycled wantons, but they have to wait to find out.) Radical Muslims are those who recruit, encourage and finance jihadists to give up their lives: better someone other then themselves. (Reminds me of a lieutenant I had in Korea, he was willing for us scouts to go to any dangerous area, so long as he could stay safely in the rear, which he did.) Moderate Muslims are those who peacefully pray and support their mosques. This permits radicals to use their donations to finance jihadists.

Obama’s speech saying the United States was not a Christian nation, his cancellation of the day of prayer on the grounds that it might offend some people and his celebration of Ramadan which included inviting 10,000 Muslims to the White House for the celebration might make some think Obama was a Muslim. I don’t think so. I suspect he probably prays to his god five times a day, if not more, but he doesn’t face Mecca when he does this. He faces a mirror.

Mayans are not alone. To quote the Encarta Enclyopedia, over one million people are estimated to have Nahuatl, the language of the Aztec, as their basic language. How many others are in similar situations? How many of our immigrants from Central and South America have Spanish as a second language, their FIRST languages being in the tongues of their ancestors? I have read reports of “educators” saying that many of our Central and South American immigrants speak Spanish poorly. Could it be because it is not their primary language?

In the 1970s “educators” railed against the "Di*k and Jane" series used to teach reading. While agreeing that its happy family of father, mother, two children a dog and a cat represented a desirable state of life, “educators” said the series over-simplified our culture and should be replaced. It was. Of course the "Di*k and Jane" series was designed to teach children to read, not to become sociologists, but that didn’t seem to matter - or else the critics didn’t think of it.

Today our schools teach students "Di*k and Jane" courses on multi-cultualism. Taught by the unknowing to the uninterested, they reflect little knowledge of other cultures at best and create false histories at worst. A good current example is “Hispanic.” Many “educators” assume, in blessed ignorance, that the poverty stricken lower classes migrating to the United States from nations with Spanish sounding names are all fluent in Spanish. A few, of course, are aware that the official language of Brazil is Portuguese.

How nice. People who emigrate to this country from Spain, Argentina, Honduras, Mexico and Puerto Rico are all the same. This is true no matter how poorly they speak Spanish or how much they desire to leave the culture and language of the land they left behind them. 

But my complaint of stereotyping is a digression from the true problem. What every teacher knows, and honest ones will admit, is that much of teaching any subject is teaching the language of that subject. Children do not enter kindergarten knowing the meaning of words such as multiplication, product, phrase, noun and adjective. They can’t read words such as house, job and car. Those words or their equivalents are taught in every country in the world in the primary language of the nation.  It permits people to function in their own societies. Isn’t that the purpose of education, to enable people to prosper in the nation in which they have chosen to live? 

Current educational wisdom is creating a bi-lingual nation, but do we want one? Canada is a bi-lingual nation. Having lived and taught there for five years, I’ve learned a little about current Canadian problems and their past history. Canada has had, since its inception, a problem between the French speaking minority and the English majority in many aspects of life, including employment opportunities. It still has it. In fact, there remains a separatist movement in Quebec. Do we wish to create such a problem in the United States? Immigrants from nations around the world, including China, Korea, Germany, Russia and Slovakia, to name just a few, have all learned English. Are persons with Spanish names so inferior that they can’t? I have personal friends with Spanish names who would dispute that. In fact, knowing them, I dispute it. The emphasis on “bi-lingual” education, as employed in many states, defeats the abilty of immigrants to achieve equal opportunity in the United States.

Incidentally, I approve of multi-lingualism. All of my older children speak more than one language and speak them well and the younger ones studied another language in high school. The oldest, Chris, has been mistaken for a Russian in Russian stores in Moscow and speaks German and some French in addition to Russian. Eric conducts conferences in Central and South America in Spanish. Bill is fluent in German and speaks some French. Stephen still recalls some Korean and German. But all were fluent in English first. They learned those other languages when there was a need.

Shouldn’t all students in this country become fluent in English first? Fluent English is essential for a comfortable and successful life in the United States. They can always learn other languages as necessary, later.

But first my experience. Conversations with troubled people both as a psychologist and as a professor led me to argue against unrestrained sexual behavior. Some casual students learned that indiscriminate sex led to pregnancy and that pregnancy inevitably resulted in one of three unhappy situations for an unmarried young woman.  Too many cried on my shoulder, but I could only listen, not give the help they wished.  The only three solutions are unhappy.

The easy out appears to be abortions but abortions are not as safe as some would have young women believe. They are dangerous medical procedures which sometimes result in serious medical problems including sterilization. The latter is only discovered when the woman, now older, wiser and married, wants a child. 

Adoption also has its problems, both for the adoptee, who spends years wondering about “real parents” and mothers who spend their lives wondering what happened to their child.

Then there are the young women who keep their out-of-wedlock children. Those I have met would like their own home and husband, but young men interested in marriage seem to be rarely interested in single girls with children, even when those girls are attractive and intelligent. 

However, these problems, all three of them, can be reduced if not eliminated if Congress will follow my advice. 

Instead of abortion clinics under varied, perhaps misleading, names, why doesn’t the government fund safe sex houses? Say a young couple has a romantic evening. A candle lit dinner, good wine and leisurely dancing lead both to romantic inclinations. If preliminary petting establishes that both are interested in a step further, they can go to a “safe sex” house. There they will be required to show identification to ensure age eligibility. Only those speaking Spanish and members of Congress will be exempted this requirement. A nurse will take blood samples from each. While these samples are being tested for contagious, sexual, diseases they can wait in a quiet lounge furnished with pleasant magazines on topics such as family planning, parenting, activities for children, long-term financial planning and medical information on safe sex practices along with brochures from different church denominations.

Following the receipt of results of the medical tests assuring that both of our interested romantics are free of disease they will be taken to another room where other magazines are available with suggestions for increasing their pleasure. While, or following, perusing these, another nurse will discuss contraceptive methods. This should include not only discussions as to the use of different types, but graphic illustrations and statistics on effectiveness. A short lesson on statistical procedures, such as the standard error of estimate and the standard error of measurement and their uses may be essential at this time. A blackboard and chalk will be available for these explanations. A short multiple choice test will be given to ensure that they understand the uses and potential problems of each method. Then they will sign affidavits that they have received and understand their counseling and that the neither the personnel of the safe sex house nor the government are responsible if they contract a disease or become pregnant. This must be notarized by a resident notary.  The notary will provide a list of lawyers who specialize in breach of promise and paternity suits. Then, following the receipt of the contraceptive devices of their choice, the couple will be assigned a room where they may complete their romantic evening.  

I believe my “safe sex house” is a reasonable suggestion for romancing couples. It will provide interesting and different foreplay while reducing the problems that so many have experienced. True, it is a different idea, but anyone who questions the wisdom of such a program, should consider other programs our Congress has passed recently. If the "safte sex house" legislation is written in simple language, they may even read it before they pass it.

Sheila tried a new dish this morning for breakfast. After she served me, she took her fork and tasted a tidbit of it. All she did was kind of grunt as she pushed my plate over to me. I would have been happier if she had seized a large forkful for herself first. In fact, she didn’t even serve herself, commenting only that it needed a few things to make it edible. I ate most of it. My army training comes in handy when eating.

I went to Dr. Smith at her insistence. In fact, she didn’t insist, she simply made an appointment for me. (Sometimes I feel left out when Sheila and I go to Gary to see about me.) However, before the appointment, the nurses at the Cardiac Club complained about her high blood pressure, so I insisted she see Gary also. Interestingly, her blood pressure went down when Gary pronounced me in reasonably good shape. Thinking about this, it bothers me a bit. A wife’s blood pressure is supposed to go up when her husband flirts with pretty girls. I flirt with the cashiers at Cee Bee all the time and it doesn’t bother her a bit. I fear it says something about her opinion of me around young ladies despite my physique and movie star good looks.

Dr. Smith asked if I would mind if a third year medical student working with him would be present at my interviews. I agreed and shortly afterwards she came in to get some preliminary data. When Gary joined her, I asked how come he always got good looking medical students. He replied that it helped that her professor was one of his patients. As we left, I commented to Sheila on the medical student’s calm interview of me – I also gave her some advice which she listened to politely. Sheila replied that Dr. Smith’s staff had warned her about me before she came in, saying I was not a typical patient. 

People have sometimes wondered why I have such a high opinion of Gary Smith. When we got home I asked Sheila if she had noted that a professor at a medical school in Nashville was willing to drive twenty miles to Bellevue for a family doctor. I’m not the only one with a high opinion of his competence.

Recently, things have not been going as well for me in another direction. I don’t know what the Cumberland Furnace community thought of Sheila at first, perhaps as a pleasant girl who married an old professor. But they have caught on that she is both bright and a talented designer. It started with her writing the newsletter for the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and has gathered steam. Both the Community Center and the Historical Society have had her design and produce flyers for them. Now, at their requests, she is designing and writing booklets. The Historical Society asked first and now the Community Center has asked. The Community Center booklet appears reasonably doable, but she is really digging into Tennessee history for the Historical Society book. I find it quite interesting, at least the tidbits she tells me. Dickson started as a railroad terminal and was incorporated in 1873, then the residents discovered they couldn’t sell liquor, so they un-incorporated in 1882, not incorporating again until 1899. They also had a Ruskin Cooperative Association founded in 1894. This was dissolved in 1899 due to a conflict between charter members who wanted a corporation for the promotion of socialism and anarchists who wanted a free love society.  The charter members moved to Georgia and the free love group found that with the loss of the charter members money they couldn’t survive as a group.  

Tonight, again busy, Sheila is designing a flyer for the new BaptistChurch in our community. If you add all this up, it does not leave the amount of time available for the care and feeding of an elderly husband that such a husband might desire.  I not only end up doing most of the laundry, tonight I did the dishes while she was reviewing her proposed flyer with the Baptists. Incidentally all of her work is community service: free.

Regarding our young borders, Andrew believes he has gotten his courses straightened out so that he will graduate in December. In the meantime, Stephen is spending most of his waking hours job hunting. So far, Obama’s stimulus hasn’t helped him. No one appears to be hiring, and he is looking well beyond Clarksville and Dickson. He would really prefer work in a zoo or botanical garden but is willing to take anything. Friday, he told me his best opportunity to date appears to be a bakery. (If anyone knows of anything available, please let him know.)

Speaking of change, consider the California school authorities. They have just completed a new school building. Cost? Five hundred and seventy eight million dollars. It is the most expensive of their new schools, having a cathedral like design, but there are two other recent schools which were beyond the budget of most districts, one cost over two hundred million, the other over three hundred million. School authorities say beautiful (beautiful by their standards) buildings will increase the interest of children in education. No wonder children in California are failing standardized tests and skipping classes, they have idiots for administrators. Aren’t any of those people, drawing high salaries, smart enough to know that it is what happens inside the classroom that makes school a desirable and interesting place to be? They need competent and interesting teachers, not expensive buildings that people won’t notice after driving past three or four times. Yep, California schools need change, beginning with administrators.

Then again, perhaps those administrators aren’t brain dead. Perhaps someone should investigate the possibilities of graft and fraud. Since they are probably using at least some federal money, couldn’t the Attorney General investigate this? Before California receives more federal money to prop up education? 

Few human behaviors create more problems for the living than those resulting from ignorance. Most of us have had unhappy results as a result of acting in ignorance or without thought. Those exceptional people who have not had such an experience probably know of other individuals or families where that has been true. Unfortunately for our nation and our rights we are now experiencing that at a national level. How many of the people championing the rights of Muslims in the United States have ever read the Q′uran, the guide to the behavior of all Muslims?

The conflict between the American people and the Obama administration and other elected Democratic officials, including Nancy Pelosi over the building of a Mosque at ground zero is a discouraging example of this ignorance. The political argument is that our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Consider this carefully. India had a religious sect called the “thuggees” which existed for the purpose of killing and robbing other people. Theirs was not the only nation with such groups. Japan had one. Lebanon had the “old man of the mountain” a religious leader who also believed in killing. My questions is, “Would the politicians who favor a Mosque at ground zero also favor permitting the assassination sects of India, Japan and Lebanon – and perhaps of others of which I am unaware, to establish themselves in the United States?”  Does freedom of religion mean to establish and practice religions in the United States whose beliefs threaten the lives of Americans and the existence of our nation?  If the answer is “no,” then why are Muslims welcomed? 

Anyone who says “Muslims are no different” should try reading the Q′uran. Surah (chapter)1, is a primarily a mixed rehash of the first four books of the Old Testament, but then it changes. I have read Surahs two through eight (and intend to continue), they are quite interesting. Women are inferior to men, people who leave the Muslim faith should be killed, and believers in other religious faiths, excepting the believers in the true book (Jews and Christians) should be killed also.  Jews and Christians should be tolerated, but as inferior subjects. However, there is an escape to the favored treatment of Jews and Christians as contrasted with atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and others. The Q′uran notes that many who say they are Jews and Christians are not really true to their religions, so they can be killed also. 

Forget the Islamic victory Mosque at ground zero in New York. I challenge anyone who says the Islamic religion should be accepted in any Christian country to read the Q′uran. Anyone who believes it cannot also believe our Constitution, which stipulates freedom and equality for all - as does Christianity. 

One program employed Dr. Donald E. Bird from Stephens College in Columbia, Missouri, to speak on “Listening.” Receiving the auditing assignment, I was not impressed by either the subject or the college. Those were my mistakes. Instead of bored, I was impressed by the professor’s presentation.  It was both interesting and meaningful.  One example he gave was of a meeting between plant management and union officials to find solutions to some union concerns. When the day ended, the manager went home, content that the discussion would be continued the next day. In the morning he was shocked to find his plant closed and the workers on strike, even though he had been told that would happen unless there were some immediate agreements.  He hadn’t listened.  

I have never forgotten the importance of listening to what a person is saying. As Dr. Bird emphasized, there is a difference between hearing and listening!

This was brought to mind recently by our friend Joyce. Joyce had hip replacement surgery one day and two days later was to be released from the hospital. My bride had gone to pick her up and take her wherever she needed to go. There were problems getting her into a nursing home and her surgeon said he would not release her unless she had an approved place but that if she could not solve that she could just go home. He did not pay attention when Joyce’s sister told him that Joyce lived alone, several miles from town. The man would have released a woman who had just had major surgery, needed help to turn or sit up in bed to a home where there was no one available to help for such routine movements, much less for preparing meals and going to the bathroom. 

I see Joyce’s problem, which was resolved, as a common problem of the patients of medical specialists. An incident at the Eye, Ear and Nose complex at the Barnes medical complex in St. Louis in the 1950’s was my introduction to this problem. A person in the complex for surgery on his sinus complained of constipation during his recovery period. No one listened. He died of an impacted colon. 

My belief in this lack of listening by medical specialists has been reinforced by my experiences with heart specialists. There appear to be two types of heart specialists; those who limit their practices to major surgery and those who work with the diagnosis and treatment of lesser heart problems. At the time of my release from the hospital following surgery requiring five by-passes, I met with both the surgeon and the heart specialist who would oversee my recovery. I have vague memories of those meetings. I recall asking them what I could do, and their answers were “anything I thought I could do.” My bride says she tried to tell them that they shouldn’t say that to me, they should discuss activities I could and could not engage in. They didn’t, so I went home worked in the garden, lifted my ladders, cleaned the gutters and did other routine tasks. In the Cardiac Rehabilitation unit I was proud of the fact that the only person who could exceed me on the weight lifting, treadmill, bicycle and other exercises was a fifty nine year old whereas I was in my late seventies and had had five bypasses. The result of “doing anything I thought I could do” was a sternum separation.  I complained, at two of our six month meetings to my heart doctor that my chest felt funny. He was busy and very dignified at such meetings, but ignored my concerns – if he had listened, my life might be different now. 

I now have a different heart doctor, one who requires continuing tests and reviews the results carefully, but I note that if I try to bring up something important to me, he, typically, has a patient waiting.

In general, my experiences with specialists are that they are more interested in the organ than in the person. They don’t listen. The one exception to this has been Dr. Najjar, an endocrinologist to whom my daughter was referred by my GP. She carefully discussed the Megaera’s problem, potential solutions and potential problems with us. I appreciated that.

My experience with specialists is why I maintain, fiercely, my loyalty to my GP, Dr. Gary Smith. You may have a specific appointment and still wait in his office for a half an hour, but Gary always has time to listen to his patients, that way he uncovers problems that others have missed or ignored – and forwards his patients to appropriate specialists as necessary, as he did my daughter Megaera. 

The problem of “listening” is not restricted to medical specialists. It is a problem we all have. Ask any adolescent after he or she has had an important, to them, conversation with a parent!

The idea of Michelle Obama vacationing with her forty closest friends amazes me. This woman is phenomenal. I can’t conceive of having forty closest friends. 

To me, a close friend has always been a person I could talk with about things that were troubling me that I didn’t want to be public or that were too controversial in the situation we were in to express them openly. I have never in my life had more than one or two such people at a time, usually men but occasionally women. In college Don Zytowski and Charley Moench filled that roll. In combat, Jim Gay was the one person I talked to freely, in complete trust of good advice and privacy. In Canada, it was Frank Chubb. In Springfield it became Susan who served as my teaching assistant in graduate classes for six years. Currently, Joyce fills that role for both Sheila and I – which makes me a bit jealous as I have known Joyce longer but Sheila and Joyce have become more intimate.

Now we all live hundreds of miles apart, except for Joyce, but I believe that if life circumstances permitted and we met again, I would still have the same friendship and freedom of thought and talk with any of them. But to have forty at once? Is she that trusting? What does she do? She can’t have them sit in a circle while she confides her private ideas and troubles, there are too many people for a circle unless she has a microphone. Perhaps address them in a classroom? How does she listen to their replies, their suggestions and consolations, by numbers? I can see her standing in front of this class of forty saying, “I am married to a cold jerk, but I can’t think what to do about it except to take vacations by myself. I enjoy his prestige and money, which overflows to me and don’t want to lose it. What should I do?” and then going up and down by row numbers to conceal that she has forgotten the names of these close friends.

To be a friend, persons must have the ability to be concerned for others than themselves. I don’t believe the Obamas, either Barrack or Michelle, have that ability. And concerning the “forty close friends,” if the Obamas were to lose their positions, would those forty, one and all, ask “Obama who?” if you mentioned their names?

Perhaps I’m wrong, however, about all of my complaints about the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of clothes and the millions in expensive, tax-payer funded, trips around the world accompanied by a multitude of (probably) fair weather friends. It may be a swan song, a last hoorah. Perhaps Michelle realizes that her husband’s band of appointees, his czars and his policies are destroying any chance of his having a second term, so she is just enjoying it while she has it. 

However, Obama still has a chance. If Michelle can’t count on his policies justifying a second term in office, she can always hope the Republican establishment will come to his rescue. The Republican Party has friends also. They could nominate one of the Old Guard, such as John McCain or Mitt Romney, who are supported by their “friends” in the liberal media while fighting for the nomination and then deserted when running for President. So perhaps she should be a bit more cautious in her extravagances. 

Then we have Senator Rangel, and now the Waters situation. Congress is bringing charges of corruption against these two, Black, long term elected officials. The Black Caucus is claiming racial discrimination.   Does this mean that the Black Caucus believes that being Black permits elected officials to do things that are against the law? Or does it mean that they know lots of things our White officials have done that are being ignored? I suspect the latter. I infer that Congress, by its strenuous efforts to avoid a trial of Rangel, is frightened that Rangel might tell of some of our other “leaders” corrupt activities. In an unfortunate way humorous, it is not the only sadly fun situation.

I enjoyed the pictures of Michelle Obama standing on the beach on the Gulf of Mexico waving and inviting people to vacation there. Another article of the same date announced that she and the President went to New England for their vacation. How much did that publicity moment on the GulfCoast cost taxpayers: first to send her and her entourage to the Gulf and then to New England for her own vacation?

Voters should not feel isolated about their tightening budgets. Even the Obamas are working at saving money. President Obama is no longer paying a personal chef in Chicago. That helps family finances. He has named him a food Czar. Now taxpayers are paying him.

Obama’s attorney general, Mr. Holder, has been accused of racism for canceling prosecution of black thugs, calling themselves “Black Panthers,” who were wielding clubs and threatening voters at a voting site. This is demonstrably false. Notice that he did not prosecute the SIEU union thugs who severely beat a black man at a Tea Party gathering. The thugs were white. Mr. Holder is too busy prosecuting Arizona for trying to prosecute persons breaking federal immigration laws to bother about minor things such as organized attacks on citizens trying to exercise their Constitutional rights of freedom to vote and peacefully assemble. 

Senator Reid has been ridiculed for saying that Obama saved Ford Motor Company with his bailout of GM (Government Motors) and Chrysler. Critics are wrong. Reid is probably right. By putting people who had no experience in management or the automobile industry in charge of GM and Chrysler, Obama convinced many people to think twice before buying one of their cars, sending many purchasers over to Ford, Toyota and Nissan.

I have wondered how the Union owners of the new Government Motors Corporation (GM) will negotiate with the Union officials representing the workers if sales and profits continue to be low, as I suspect they are. My guesses are that if retired union members get to vote on the leadership – and exercise that right - the workers will pay for any reduction in profits, but that if only working workers vote for officials, the retirees will take a hit. Wouldn’t it be interesting to sit in on their next negotiations? Wouldn’t it worth the time of some investigative reporter such as Michelle Malkin?

In a previous “political thoughts” I suggested that Michelle Obama staying in Paris while her husband, the President, visited Muslim nations was evidence that he was a Muslim and obeying Islamic law. Now, I question that idea. An article by Andrea Tantaros (NYDailynews.com, Aug 5) reports that Michele is taking a holiday in Spain with one daughter and her FORTY closest friends plus a plethora of secret service agents. They will occupy 60 rooms in a five star hotel while Barack spends his birthday alone in the States. It reminds me of the time that my ex-wife took the children to visit her parents in St. Louis leaving me to celebrate the Easter holiday alone in Edmonton, Alberta. It was the first sign, later frequently repeated, that she found my company uninteresting. Could Michelle be getting tired of Barack?

During quiet moments in my months in combat in Korea I and others laughed a lot about our lives, but that didn’t keep us from knowing how serious our situation was. I can laugh a lot about the President’s antics and Congress’s blatant cover-ups, but I still know how serious it is for our country. As in combat when the chips were down, I’ll know how to act come Election Day.

a.       I had nothing to do and it was a choice between sitting on the porch and smoking or mowing grass, and I thought mowing grass was healthier, or

b.      I needed a shower, but wasn’t really dirty, so I decided to get good and dirty first to avoid wasting water on a reasonably clean body, or

c.       Mr. Loggins was mowing his grass and he was ten years younger than I: it was a matter of competition. (Fortunately, she didn’t bring up that he had a riding mower, or

d.      All of the above. 

She didn’t answer me. Sometimes she doesn’t answer me. Unfortunately, sometimes she does.

On the way to church this morning, Sheila commented that I would have to spend Tuesday with her at the hospital in Nashville. She said, “They’ve told me I’ll be sleepy. A responsible person will have to sit in when they are giving me instructions as to what to do when I’m released because I won’t remember anything. Mom can’t go, Megaera’s in class, Cindy is working and Joyce is still recovering from hip replacement. That leaves you.”

With visions of Black Forest whipped cream cake and our famous sand tarts flipping thought my head, I replied, “That means you will have to do everything I say.”

“Not everything.”

“You are suspicious.”

“I am more than suspicious, I am all knowing.” 

On our way to the hospital in Nashville, we stopped to get Sheila’s drivers’ license updated. The lady took it and kept it. She said that Sheila’s driving privileges had been revoked, although she couldn’t say why, the space for that on the revocation order was blank. Since a photo ID was required for her treatment at the hospital, I had to drive back home for her passport before driving back to Dickson and on to the hospital.

The next morning we still couldn’t find out with a telephone call to Nashville why her license had been confiscated, so I e-mailed our State Senator, Doug Jackson, who had been helpful before in a case involving a disabled friend who couldn’t secure disability. I included all the information we had, plus our need.  Discussing this at the Cardiac Club, friends speculated on reasons. Among those given was that Sheila should give up drinking, she should pay her taxes, she was a secret terrorist, she was a child abuser (I stepped in on that one and said I had eight children who would agree), she should have paid her parking tickets, she didn’t vote for Obama and (my favorite) she had worked for a criminal organization – the Federal Government.

As a follow-up: Senator Jackson returned the e-mail. He had telephoned the director of the bureau and that if we did not hear from that person we should call him on his cell phone that evening. That was unnecessary.  Sheila received a telephone call from the director of the licensing shortly after we received the e-mail. Later, she received another call saying she could pick up her license, that they had reviewed her record, found not only no reason for the cancellation, but no record of any offences. The next morning we drove to the license bureau and she received her license. Incidentally, the director said they were continuing to explore her situation, to try to discover how it had happened.

On a better note (I’m bragging), Sheila had entered a painting in a Dickson area art exhibit and received a first place ribbon. She was asked to take the painting to Jackson, TN, for an area contest. We did. After recovering her license, we drove to Jackson to pick up her painting. She had won a second place ribbon. Not bad when you consider it was for all of western Tennessee, which includes Memphis.   

Incidentally, it has been some week. Monday we drove to Jackson to turn in Sheila’s painting. That was a 250 mile round trip and came back through a horrendous rainstorm – I spent 40 miles following a truck, which I could barely see at times, because I could not see the road markings. Tuesday we went for the drivers’ license, 40 miles of driving and then Sheila to the hospital in Nashville, another 110 miles of traffic, getting home about six.  Then we had a Community Center meeting. Wednesday I mowed more grass and accompanied Sheila to a BaptistChurch that is getting started in the Furnace and has a bunch of nice people attending. Thursday, the Cardiac Club and then mowing grass when I got home with the temperature in the upper 90s. Friday, back to the drivers’ license bureau to pick up Sheila’s license and then home to change cars (Andrew had taken the wrong one on his way to work) and then to Jackson to pick up Sheila’s painting. It is now Saturday morning, and I’m tired. Love to all!

Wasn’t that great? I told Sheila that since we both enjoy swimming we should move to California at the start of next summer and purchase a million dollar home with a full swimming pool through our government lending agencies. We can live there and swim all summer without paying a cent on the mortgage because it would take at least three or four months for them to foreclose. Then we could return to our hovel in the hills after a great summer. 

Explaining this to my bride, I realized there was a problem. We are not members of a privileged minority; we are only members of the oppressed majority. We would not qualify for a loan.

South Carolina Democratic leaders are questioning how Alvin Greene entered and won the Democratic primary to become their candidate for the United States Senate. Reading the Fox news article (June 14) on the subject, especially the comments, was hilarious. The political leaders are questioning Mr. Greene’s intelligence and sanity. Notice, they are not questioning the intelligence and sanity of persons who voted for him, nor the Democratic leaders’ competence in failing to put up a candidate more appealing than an unemployed man, facing sexual charges who was given a military discharge other than honorable. 

Arizona, tiring of waiting for the Federal Government to enforce Federal immigration laws, passed an immigration law and is enforcing it. Now the Arizona government is considering a law to forbid the issuance of birth certificates to children born of illegal immigrants. Governor Jindal of Louisiana, tiring of waiting for approval from Obama’s agencies has ordered his National Guard to begin building a sea wall to protect the Louisiana coast from the oil spill. It all seems proper. Diversity is the holy grail of education and diversity is practiced in the work place as a protection against lawsuits. It seems only proper to practice diversity among the States. It used to be called “States rights,” which everyone knew was wrong, but diversity is good.

Today, June 16^th, the Wall Street Journal reported Obama’s Afghanistan efforts are receiving severe criticism in the Senate. I don’t understand their problem. His successes there match his success in containing the ObamaGulf oil spill. 

One of the funniest news articles I’ve read in the past month, although reporters don’t appear to have seen the irony in it, was Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, going to Europe and lecturing the European leaders on THEIR need to reduce their debts.

The story of the Russian “spies” was fun to read. These eleven “spies” found the good life in the United States, and were enjoying it. According to published reports I have read they never supplied Russia with any information worth having, but they successfully cheated Russia out of hundreds of thousands of dollars to support their lavish life styles. At home, prison awaits. They should have applied for political asylum immediately before being “exchanged”.  One question: if they received asylum, would they have been allowed to keep the million dollar homes they purchased with Russian money?

An interesting article questioning the failure of Michelle Obama to accompany her husband on trips to Muslim nations when Laura Bush had accompanied her husband on similar trips, pointed out that it is against Muslim law for a Muslim leader to have his wife accompany him on such trips, not against the law for a non-Muslim leader to bring his wife. There appear to be more and more indications, none in national news, that Mr. Obama is not only our first Black president, he is also our first Muslim president.

Larry Elder’s article, “The Wall Street ‘Revolt’ Against the Democrats” (8 July 2010) was interesting. He used facts to destroy (and I thought ridicule) an article in the Washington Post in which a partial report of facts was to the benefit of the Democratic Party. The article he criticized is not the first of its kind. The Washington Post appears more interested in endorsing and supporting Obama and the Democratic Party than in factual reporting. Could they be hiring reporters and editors from the New York Times?

The timing was important. President Eisenhower’s political capital was based on the success of truce talks we were holding with the North Koreans and the Chinese. If the talks were successful, he would be praised: failure would result in condemnation. At the peace table his envoys had offered for both sides to maintain the positions they held at that time. 

This provided a win/win situation for the enemy. With the exception of the 15^th Infantry Regiment and elements of the 5^th, there were no experienced infantry soldiers between them and Seoul. If they could break through the Fifteenth they would once again control most of Korea. On the other hand, if they failed, President Eisenhower had agreed to a truce at the present front. 

They attacked on the night of the 10^th of June.  Orders sent to Colonel Akers of the Fifteenth were to “Hold at All Costs.” Those of us up front didn’t know that, we simply knew that all hell was breaking loose.

The 15^th consisted of four battalions, three American, one Greek. A total of about four thousand soldiers. They were backed up by elements of the 5^th Infantry Regiment. While two regiments may have had as many as eight thousand men, the total number of working, experienced, infantry soldiers was five or six thousand at most, the remainder being persons such as medics, mailmen, cooks, wiremen and other supporting soldiers. Against this group, the Chinese threw two divisions, about 20 thousand fighting men.  The fight for Harry lasted eight days, including five nights of mass attacks. An estimated 7000 enemy soldiers were killed. We lost about 2300 men killed and wounded, but they did not die in vain. They held.  South Korea remained free.

Consider it. Twenty thousand men, attacking for eight nights, could not take one small hill, never defended by more than a hundred men at any given time. That is what concerns me about Afghanistan.

When he was campaigning for office, President Obama said we were failing in Iraq, but that was unimportant, Afghanistan was important to American interests, not Iraq and its oil. If elected he would withdraw from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. If I recall correctly, the general in charge of the Afghanistan campaign said he needed 60, 000 soldiers to pacify the warring tribes, President Bush’s initial foray having reduced the Taliban and the Al Queda.  President Obama replaced that general. His new general was reported to have asked for eighty thousand soldiers initially, reducing this request to 40,000 following talks with the president. He was promised 20,000. A year later he was replaced as the situation, for Americans, grew steadily worse. 

Compare the two examples above, twenty thousand experienced soldiers were unable to take one small hill from a combined force numbering about 5000 fighting men with no more than 100 on the hill at any one time, but President Obama expects to pacify an entire nation consisting of well armed tribes whose hatred of one another, historically, has been exceeded only by their hatred of outsiders, be they Alexander’s Persians 3,000 years ago, Russians twenty or thirty years ago, or, now, Americans. Twenty thousand are too few to win in Afghanistan, too few to even survive.

American military personnel being sent to Afghanistan are being sacrificed for political expediency by President Obama. He probably can’t think of a way to justify bringing the military home from a nation he said was important but neither is he willing to do as President Johnson became infamous for, sending in the quarter or half million soldiers necessary to win. While Obama dallies people are dying. His indecision is sacrificing our men and women. 

I have a grandson, August, whom Sheila and I grew to love dearly during the summers he spent with us, who is in the Marines and is scheduled for duty in Afghanistan this fall. Sorry Mr. President, if something happens to August, I shall never forgive you for his needless death or injury. Not just relatives of those few serving in Afghanistan, but none of us should forgive you for the people you are currently, needlessly, mindlessly permitting to suffer and die for your own hoped for glory. 

Father’s Day was interesting. Our shepherd, Sheba, had disappeared two days earlier. Old and crippled, she seldom strayed from the home area so the boys began a search which lasted late into Saturday night. Finally they heard her under the house, wedged into a position under the front room. She couldn’t get out: the boys couldn’t get to her. The result? Sunday morning, our crowded office, the front room, had to be emptied of furniture, then Stephen pulled up the carpet and plywood and cut through the flooring about where they thought she was located. They were close, close enough that Stephen was able to reach her after he got down into the hole. One thirsty dog was pulled out. She must have crawled under to hide from a thunderstorm we had two days earlier. Anyway, flooring is replaced, the room is approaching normal and we have a happy three dog family again.  Happy Father’s Day, to me.

Reading the above, remember that “happy” is a relative term. If one doesn’t mind stumbling over dogs sleeping in doorways or narrow hallways when walking through a dark house or being awakened at five in the morning by a beast barking for food, which she then looks at and walks away from, and other minor matters, then I’m happy to have all three back: all three fat, contented, obstructionist beasts. Bigoted women might say they are a lot like husbands.

For the weekend of the Fourth of July we had family: two sons, two daughters, two son-in-laws, three teen-aged grand daughters, and two grand sons (one twelve and one eight). It was a great four days. As Sheila said, “We had four days of laughter throughout the house.” Sheila, needless to say, spent all of her time cooking. It was amusing to listen to sixteen and eighteen year old girls complain about being fat (which they were not) while shoveling food into their mouths. The creek was a favorite outing although Stephen took Nick, age eight, to Grady Yate’s pond where he caught six blue gill. I took the girls to Bob and Kathy Conner’s home where they picked blueberries. (They didn’t do a bad job, in addition to those they ate, they filled three one gallon buckets.) I believe it was a happy and “rememberable” experience for all of the young people. 

I was really pleased to have the young ones experience the Fourth of July at the Furnace. It is a remnant of a wonderful past in the United States. During the day, there are bands playing and children occupy the playground and creeks while parents sit in the shade. As evening comes and the crowd gathers, all visiting politicians are given five minutes to explain why they should be elected. And it is a crowd. Our little community center, which exists on donations and the profit from “whole hawg” barbecues and whose meetings are routinely attended by fewer than ten people, puts on a show that fills the area, with parked and double-parked cars packed along the roads and on lawns a half mile in all directions. It draws a crowd estimated at two to three thousand people, all in good humor. As people gather around the ball park, the center of the fireworks, little children race about the grass laughing and twirling and chasing each other until the sun sets and darkness covers the field. This is our past, a place where people could gather in good humor and children could play in safety. I’m glad my grandchildren had an opportunity to experience it.  

Most “scientific” research is done at universities. There may have been a time when it was a sincere attempt, occasionally well done, to understand the world we live in, but that was before my time. In those days, professors were poorly paid but received, in exchange for teaching twelve or fifteen hours a week, the time to study phenomena of interest to them. They also received free access to university facilities, such as swimming pools and squash courts, and to university events such as concerts, plays, football and other sports games. As a last “goody” their children were given a free university education. It was a nice life, as long as money wasn’t your goal. 

Since most research was and is conducted at Universities, it is necessary to understand their structure. Universities employ administrators, faculty, students and ground crews, these latter being of lesser importance to this article. Faculty includes professors (full, associate and assistant) and instructors. Students include undergraduates and graduates. Graduates are frequently employed as assistants. In the past, research was important at major universities while instruction was emphasized at state and private colleges. This latter attitude was beautifully illustrated by Dr. Morgan of Austin Peay State College, now a university. Almost forty years ago he said to me, “Our job is to prepare students for life in the middle Tennessee area.” 

This attitude was not true at universities. Promotion and job security at universities was and is highly dependent on the publication of professional articles. The difference in the two approaches resulted in differences in work loads. Most college professors taught four or five three hour courses a week, resulting in their being in the classroom twelve or fifteen hours, the remainder of their workdays, theoretically, occupied with advising students, maintaining their expertise by reading professional articles and faculty meetings. The teaching load at research universities was, typically, two or three courses a week, with retention and promotion based on research publications.

Most of this research used white mice (or rats) or undergraduate college students. The results were then applied to life itself. This was considered serious research. No one ever questioned whether wild mice (or rats) would behave the same as those white relatives, or if people would behave the same, under similar treatment, as white mice did. Similarly, no one seemed to worry, at any serious level, if mature adults would behave the same as seventeen to nineteen-year old youth living on parental bounty. 

Some of the research I found humorous. In every university library there is a series of volumes, published annually, reporting masters and doctoral research conducted by students as a means of completing their Masters and Doctorate degrees. Some days, for enjoyment I would go in and read these excerpts. The only one I remember specifically, was one in which the distance a person would jump and their reaction, if pinched while waiting on a street corner. I believe the recipient of this profound research is now a professor.  

The election of President Kennedy began a change in this life, the change being accelerated by President Johnson. Hundreds of millions of dollars were given to universities to conduct research in which the government was interested. This resulted in a massive increase in the number of administrators, professors and graduate students, the latter being rewarded for conducting the research paid for by the government to the universities with Masters and Doctoral degrees. It also resulted in some interesting research. As one professor moaned in a professional journal, “The government is now paying us to conduct research we wouldn’t have considered worth doing in the past.”

But the problem of research integrity went beyond this. The government paid professors for doing the research it wanted AND obtaining the results it wanted. The first study that brought this to my attention was conducted by a university in, if I recall correctly, Iowa. The researchers proposed that their experimental classroom procedures would increase the intelligence of slum children. At a time when my salary as an associate professor was about twelve thousand dollars a year, they received several hundred thousand dollars to conduct this study. It worked. They tested the children every few months and found a steady increase in measured intelligence. When the study was concluded they received several hundred more thousand dollars to continue it, even to go to Europe to announce their procedures and results. It did not seem to occur to anyone financing or evaluating the work of these professors that if you gave the same children the same IQ test every few months over a period of a year that their IQ test scores might improve. 

Note that I have not mentioned the possibility of professors falsifying their data or lying about the results, but I have known that to happen.

I had reason to be critical, no reason to be surprised. Mine is different from that of the Wall Street editorialist. At eighty I undoubtedly have more experience with government bureaucracy than the disappointed Wall Street editorialist.

In 1953, I applied for a driver’s license in St. Louis.  I was informed I needed my income tax receipts to obtain one. When I explained that I had been in combat in Korea and, being in combat, I was excused income taxes, the license lady said no receipts, no license.  Learning of my problem, my father told a friend whose brother was president of a major union about it. Soon I received a call from my father: go back for your license. When I walked into the agency, the same woman said, “Oh, Mr. Dannenmaier,” walked over to a desk and returned saying, “Here is your license.”

But I experienced bureaucracy in its prime in Massachusetts. To obtain a driver’s license there I stood in five different lines, as did everyone else applying. But the best was my water supply. The water coming from the faucet in the house we rented was a bright blue. A person at work told me there was a bureau established to check drinking water. When I took a sample there, the man in charge of what appeared to be a one man, one secretary office said, “Oh, we only test for …” and mentioned a single chemical. When I asked where I could go, he said he didn’t know.

This is why the Census questionnaire didn’t surprise me. During my brief career as a Census worker, I completed that form for each residence occupied on April 1. Item 5 required me to document if any resident was of Hispanic descent. If the answer was “yes,” I had to specify if the person was Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuba or some other Hispanic nationality, which I then had to note; e.g., Argentinean, Brazilian, etc. Item 6 required me to identify each person by race. Choices included White, Asian Indian, Japanese, Native Hawaiian, American Indian, Black, Chinese, etc. 

Why was the editorialist complaining about polarization? Isn’t the goal of our current political leadership is to change the motto of our nation from “Out of many, One” to “Out of One, Many?” Diversity is king in the schools and the workplace. The census form simply supports the direction of the nation, as being enforced by those whom they have elected. 

What was odd was that the form lumps all American Indians, Blacks and Whites into unified groups. Is this a consequence of ignorance or simple stupidity? 

Since when have all American Indians been the same? Working in North Dakota, I learned that the Chippewa and the Sioux were at continuous warfare with each other in decades past. The wars have ceased, the hatred hasn’t. A friend and co-worker, who was half Chippewa, told me that if a Sioux wandered onto the local Chippewa reservation he would be lucky to leave alive and that no Chippewa would dare step foot on a nearby Sioux reservation. This was only thirty years ago. Similarly, the Crow and the Blackfeet have years of experience to distrust one another. I suspect it is the same in other parts of the nation. Why assume all American Indians are the same when we distinguish between Hispanics?

I accept that the rigors and horrors of slavery united all African natives into Blacks, but that was long ago. Since President Kennedy changed the immigration laws there has been a great increase in immigrants from central and southern Africa. Newspapers report that the various tribal groups in those areas are still busy killing each other and asserting the right to their own identity. Do all of these feelings change as a result of entering the United States? Why not permit Blacks to identify themselves by their heritage, albeit Ethiopian, Kenyan, Zulu or other?

I know more about Whites, being one. An early memory is of my mother telling of how my grandmother Dannenmaier, from Swabia, would turn her back on my grandmother Hartwig, calling her a “Prussian Pig.” Such feelings, however, while occurring in all nations, are trivial. There are major groupings such as Celtics, Germanics, Slavs, and Scythians among others. Again, why not acknowledge the “diversity?”

The above experiences cause me to believe that the Census document was simply an incompetent attempt to understand the racial backgrounds of the persons who now inhabit the United States. My complaint is that it is based on ignorance, ignorance of the diversity of the human species and of our nation.   A census form, which fully completed what this one started, would require a small booklet, perhaps a hundred or so pages and take time, which is expensive, to complete, but at the least it would indicate some knowledge on the part of the bureaucrat who wrote it. Of course it would be simpler, and much less expensive, to simply ask, “U.S. Citizen” or “Other.”

And friends wonder why I don’t trust the government to run my medical care. 

She said she supported him because he favored abortion rights, that she believed the “right” to an abortion should be between the woman and her doctor. To a certain extent, I agree with her. If the woman’s condition makes it physically or economically dangerous for her to have a child, I have no objection to her having an abortion following a discussion with her doctor. Similarly, if ultrasound taken early in the pregnancy - and they are given early in pregnancies - indicates a seriously deformed child, again I have no objections. Otherwise I do have objections. 

First and foremost, I object to late term abortions. I object to a child, in the process of birth, having a doctor insert a needle into its brain and kill it. To me, that is a living child and that is murder of an innocent. They say it is painless. If it is so “painless,” as abortionists declare, why don’t we execute murderers that way?

Second, I object to using my money to pay for the consequences of the frivolous sexual freedom which results in pregnancies. When I was teaching college, students would confide their adventures and problems to me.  I knew more than one girl who, from unprotected sex, got pregnant, went and got an abortion through “Planned Parenthood,” and finally, a year later got pregnant again through more unprotected sex and returned to “Planned Parenthood” for another abortion.

“Planned Parenthood” makes a lot of money off of such people, but not from them. Most of the multi-million dollar profits enjoyed by “Planned Parenthood” come from the federal government, from taxpayers whether they approve of such irresponsible promiscuity or not. Incidentally, I place “Planned Parenthood” in quotes because it is the name of the organization, which should be “Abortions on Request.” 

There is another element that I have against abortions. During the twenty-five years I spent as a licensed psychologist, both teaching and practicing, I met young married women who, to their sorrow, found that an earlier, legal, abortion had left them sterile, unable to have the children they now craved.  People expound on the danger of “back alley” abortions, but main street abortions are just as dangerous, however no one documents this.

The belief in the right of women and men, to control their own children is nothing new. Two hundred or so years ago, people could do anything they wished with their children: abuse them, maim them, even kill them. After all, they were their children. If I recall correctly, the first parents convicted of child abuse were in New York City, but not as a result of any law protecting children.  There were no laws protecting children. There were animal abuse laws; protecting horses, cows and dogs. A couple who were seriously abusing their own children were brought to court, and punished, under these humane society laws. 

Women who are pregnant typically know that within two months of impregnation. At that time “infants” are simply human masses of cells. Ultrasound can establish, certainly well before the first six months the health of that to-be-child and I have no serious objections to abortions at such time (provided I don’t have to pay for them).  I even approve of abortions of deformed fetuses, having known couples unable to have other children because of the cost of supporting a deformed child.  But by seven months, that fetus is no longer simply a mass of cells: it is a child with eyes, arms, legs, fingers and toes - capable of living beyond the womb. Ultrasound pictures of babies aborted at such times show infants desperately trying to avoid the forceps that are being used to pull off their arms and legs and pull them from the womb. That is murder.  Vicious murder.  And that is what these candidates who support “women’s rights to abortions” are so casually supporting. 

The question of abortion requires more than a simple “I’m for it” or “I’m against it” answer. Sorry, but I don’t trust a candidate who gives a simple answer to abortion.