THE PERILS OF DENIAL-79

By this time everyone who is paying attention knows about the infamous videos of Dr. Jonathan Gruber, professor at MIT since 1992, discussing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). He was honest, but decidedly politically inept, and certainly arrogant and elitist in revealing, at a series of technical conferences over several years, how this law was formulated and passed by congress. In a naïve, one could even say incredibly clueless, manner he admitted lies and deception were necessary to get the law passed and repeatedly characterized the American public as being stupid. Because the evidence is so clear in this series of videos what he said cannot be disputed so this has made Dr. Gruber toxic – a pariah to the supporters of the ACA. For his consulting work on the ACA Gruber was paid $390,000 by the federal government and approx. $1.7 million by various state governments. All totaled Gruber was paid around $6 million over the years by the feds and state governments for consulting work, going back to the Geo. W. Bush administration. Most of these payments were made by the Obama administration, including work on the immigration issue. How did these videos come to light? That is an interesting story and goes like this: After the ACA law went into effect a Philadelphia investment advisor, Rich Weinstein, found out that his health insurance policy was cancelled because of the ACA and his new insurance premium would be double what it had been for essentially the same coverage. He was ticked off (How could he be so unreasonable?) so he began investigating various aspects of the law and how it came about. Weinstein spent many hours looking into it and this including watching videos, monitoring Facebook, Twitter, etc. After watching interminable boring videos he finally came across one where, at a conference, Dr. Gruber admitted that deception was used to get the ACA passed and said that was necessary because the public was so stupid. Realizing this was a potential goldmine of information concerning the ACA, Weinstein pursued that line of inquiry and the result was some of the videos that have been exposed. This is not the end of the story of the videos. After discovering several of these Gruber videos, Weinstein used every media he could think of from Facebook to phone calls to contact Fox News, Forbes, the National Review, Glenn Beck, and a TV network affiliate in Philadelphia where a friend of his worked. None responded. Not a single one. He finally posted a comment on the web page of the Volokh Conspiracy, a group of conservative lawyers whose blog is hosted by the Washington Post. A conservative activist picked it up, and Forbes wound up carrying a piece by contributor Michael Cannon, dubbed by the New Republic “Obamacare’s Single Most Relentless Antagonist.” From there Fox News and the Daily Caller ran with the story and discovered additional videos of Gruber explaining the deception used to pass the ACA and denigrating the public in the process. When contacted by reporter and commentator Howard Kurtz, Weinstein declined to be interviewed on TV and would not give Kurtz a photo of himself saying he did not want to become “Rich The Plumber.” You may remember when Barack Obama was on a presidential campaign stop in Toledo, Ohio in 2008 Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka Joe The Plumber) questioned him about his purposed Small Business Tax. Obama responded, “When you spread the wealth around it is good for everybody.” For that affront to the News Media’s darling presidential candidate, poor Wurzelbacher, referred as “Joe The Plumber” was trashed as only the left can do. How about the Main Stream Media (MSM) of the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC? What was their response to the Gruber story? The short answer is there was no response except for a short comment by CNN for four days after Fox TV ran the story every day. Finally after days of coverage by FOX, talk radio, and the internet; the New York Times, Washington Post ant the TV networks felt compelled to cover the story or lose credibility as news organizations. Now we come to the title part of this essay. Because the statements made by Gruber in the videos were so explicit in how deception was used in getting the ACA passed and how necessary that was because the public is so uninformed and dense there was no gainsaying what Gruber said. What options then were left for the Democrat supporters of the ACA to react? The only options were to downplay the contributions to the ACA made by Gruber and try to distance themselves from him. As it turns out, good luck with that. The disingenuous President Obama said that Gruber was not a member of the White House staff and so implied that he had little to do with formulating the law and nothing to do with selling it to the public. The House minority leader, the dummkopf Nancy Pelosi, said “Gruber, who is he?” The Democrats in the House wrote the law and Gruber had nothing to do with that. The egregious Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, likewise said Gruber was a minor figure in contributing to the law. The White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, trivialized the roll Gruber played in formulating the ACA and said he did not contribute in any way to its implantation. Stay with me and let me take a slight, but cogent detour in this continuing narrative. In the Republican Presidential Primary in 1980 G.H.W. Bush said of his then competitor, Ronald Reagan, that Reagan’s proposed economic policies were “Voodoo economics.” After Reagan secured the Republican nomination for president and chose Bush as his vice-president running mate the news media ask Bush on TV about his Voodoo Economics remark. Bush replied that he never said that. The next thing viewers saw and heard was Bush making his Voodoo Economics remark. That was, and now is even more so, the age of permanent video and audio recordings of people’s comments. In his so-called “whistle stop” campaign aboard a train for the presidential election in 1948 Harry Truman addressed crowds in various cities across the country. A reporter travelling with the press contingent confronted Truman at one point saying that what he had just said to one crowd contradicted what he had said to the crowd at the last stop. Truman told him that he never said that. The reporter demurred, showing Truman what he had written in his notes about Truman’s previous speech. Truman insisted he had never said that. What was the reporter to do? What he had written was his word against the President’s. There was no “gotcha ” moment then – there is now. I do not mean to denigrate the 33rd president of the United States who I consider one of the great presidents of the 20th century along with Ronald Reagan. I only intend to state that presidents, even the ones that are relative honest and plain speaking, are politicians who occasionally put their own interests above being completely forthright with the people. This does not exclude one of the two greatest presidents of the USA, Abraham Lincoln (see my essay The Sultana Disaster and President Lincoln). Just as with Bush in 1980, the Democrats today either do not comprehend the age we are living in or they are so used to being shielded by the MSM that they believe their words will never come back to haunt them. They are mistaken on either count. What are the words that show these aforementioned Democrats were lying with their comments belittling the importance and the contributions of Gruber to the ACA? In 2006 then Senator Obama said that he freely stole ideas from the likes of Austin Goolsby, an unreformed Keynesian economist, and from economist JONATHAN GRUBER. Nancy Pelosi said in a 2009 speech in the House that Dr. Gruber, a professor at MIT, was a major contributor to the ACA and Harry Reid said in the Senate that Dr. Gruber was one of the most highly respected economists in the world and contributed mightily to the ACA. Josh Ernest is merely a hack propagandist and not a very clever liar. Gruber made a recorded 19 trips to the White House during the writing of the ACA and met with President Obama on more than one occasion and in one instant was one of only six people who had a conference in the White House with President Obama. Would you describe politicians who are so careless, so forgetful, or so dim that when they make contradictory statements they do not realize that in this technological age their previous words on a particular subject will come back to prove they are deceitful and completely untrustworthy as being clever? Of course not and neither would any honest and informed person.

COWBOY BUSH & COWARD OBAMA-78

Do those two presidents of the United States deserve those monikers and all that they imply? Even though everyone reading this will likely already have their own opinion I suggest that before you form a definitive and permanent position on these two widely different in philosophy and temperament people, you should carefully weigh the evidence presented here. I shall be laying out facts and from these facts rendering concluding judgments. Even his supporters should admit that Geo. Bush had a certain jaunty and even cocksure attitude about him. That is not unmitigated criticism – it is just part of his persona. It is manifested in the way he would give people around him and people he came in contact with nicknames and sometimes apply one liner to them. Some of those were not all that accurate: e.g. “You are doing a heck of a job Brownie.” I am amused the way some on the left have demeaned and insulted Bush by calling him dumb and inept. Here is a man who was twice elected governor of Texas and elected and reelected President of the United States. His harsh critics have not accomplished anything even remotely approaching that. So it may be a question of “Dumb & Dumber” with the critics on the south end of it. In case anyone has forgotten, the former governor of Texas, Ann Richards, said of George H.W. Bush at the Democrat Presidential convention in 1992, “Poor George can’t ‘hep’ it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” She thought she was being so clever and so did the convention delegates. Can you imagine the satisfaction in the Bush family when George W. Bush whipped ole Ann, the incumbent governor, in the 1994 Texas governor’s election? Something about the cliché “who laughs last, laughs best.” The USA war with Afghanistan was not optional. Even most Democrats (except for the loony left such as Code Pink) concede that. The Taliban government of Afghanistan gave sanctuary to Osama ben Laden and his merry band of terrorists, including Aymon al-Zawahiri his 2nd in command who remains at large to this day. For justice and to maintain any credibility as a nation Bush had to act. Naturally the pro-forma ritual of demanding the surrender of these killers had to be made to the Taliban prior to an invasion and of course they refused. The mistake by Bush was in staying in Afghanistan in attempting to “democratize” the country. Forget that, they are a tribal society and have been for seemingly millions of years, but at least for centuries. In the 320’s BC Alexander the Great is alleged to have said that it was easier to get into Afghanistan than get out. The British fought two wars in Afghanistan in 1839 – 42 & 1878 – 80 largely to counter the influence of Russia in the East. Although the British forces did temporarily subdue the Afghans, when the Brits pulled out both times it was back to the same old tribal business for the Afghans. The Soviets tried their luck in their little war in 1979 – 1989 and eventually the Russian Bear left with its tail between its legs. Why on earth would the USA have thought the outcome would be any different this time? Perhaps it is hubris and unwarranted confidence by Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. What did Spanish philosopher George Santayana say? Yes, it was “those who can not remember history are condemned to repeat it.” So simple, yet so true. How about the 2nd Iraq War? In hindsight it certainly should not have been started. Dick Chaney and perhaps Bush would not agree and Chaney has said so, but in the words of George Bernard Shaw, “What are two against so many?” Incidentally, that quote comes when a critic said, “Shaw your latest play stinks.” Shaw replied, “I agree with you, but what are two against so many?” If someone in foresight would have said that the war should not have been started, I would not gainsay that, yet that is far from being the universal view. The argument that Iraq was subdued until President Obama prematurely withdrew American troops seems to me to be greatly flawed. Should the USA have kept a large contingent of troops in Iraq in perpetuity? Even as long as we have had combat troops in Europe and South Korea (What is it, going on 70 years now?) would be way too long. What if China and some other nations decide to stop financing our excessive military spending as well as our profligate social spending? We might end up like Argentina and have to renege on our national debt. Not as Friedrich Hayek titled his 1944 book on economics, The Road to Serfdom, but this could be the Road to Becoming a 3rd Rate Nation. Let us analysis the other wars in the Middle East that overthrew dictators during both the Bush and Obama administrations. (1.) Iraq is now practically an ungovernable mess and certainly worse than when the brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, was running the country. (2.) Libya has descended into total chaos since the dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, was overthrown and brutally murdered. (3.) Ex-general Hosni Mubarak was deposed and the radical Islamic Muslim Brotherhood, supported by the Obama administration, under Mohammed Morsi came to power in an election. Fortunately another Egyptian general, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, trained at the Joint Service Command and Staff College in the UK in 1992 and at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania in 2006 staged a coop against the government and was subsequently elected president of Egypt. (4.) The dictator and dentist Basher al-Assad rules a fractured and war-torn Syria and President Obama wanted to overthrow him and even said if “he crossed a red line and used chemical weapons on his people “ Obama would use our military to force him out of power. Assad did and Obama didn’t. It was just as well because now the absolutely brutal and merciless Islamic fanatic group, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS), subsequently renamed The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and now wanting to be known simply as the Islamic State (IS) because they have delusional ambitions to set up a caliphate in Iraq/Syria to rule the entire world have taken root. They have taken charge not only much of Iraq, but are headquartered in northeastern Syria. As with the other dictators, better to leave Assad in charge than give the opportunity to the more extremist and radical group such as al- Qaeda (the base) and its often even more brutal offshoots to rule. When Barack Obama became a candidate for the Democrat nominee for President of the USA he and his advisors said, “he is a uniter, not a divider”, and Obama said, “there is not a Red America and a Blue America, but only a Red, White, and Blue America.” Does anyone honestly believe this has eventuated? I would submit that in the circa 6 years that Obama has been president the country has become more polarized politically, socially, and racially than in recent history and I will attempt to make that case by giving concrete examples. In 2009 President Obama went on what conservatives called an “apology tour.” (1.) In France in April 2009 Obama said, “There have been times when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” (2.) In an address to the Turkish parliament also in April 2009 Obama said, “The USA is still working through some of our darker periods in our history.” (3.) In Egypt in June 2009 citing the ‘fear and danger’ after 9/11 Obama said that in some cases, “It has led to the US acting contrary to our traditions and our ideals.” (4.) In Latin America Obama said that the USA had not “Pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.” (5.) In London Obama observed that “decisions about the world’s financial system were no longer made by Churchill and Roosevelt sitting in a room with brandy” as if that were a bad thing. (6.) At a NATO Summit in August 2012 Obama was asked if he believed in America exceptionalism. He replied, “He did, just as the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, he does not. These statements by a sitting American President on foreign soil are unprecedented and reflect badly upon the USA and President Obama. Contrast that to the words of President Kennedy when he declared in West Berlin in June 1963, “Ich ein Berliner (I am a Berliner)” and in the same speech said in response to those who claimed that we could work with the communists, “Lass sie nach Berlin kommen (let them come to Berlin).” Or on June 12, 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin at the 750th commemoration of the founding of Berlin when President Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Brave and stirring words by these two USA Presidents versus the weak, subservient, and apologetic words of President Obama. However, if Obama ever blames himself for mistakes or miscalculations I have yet to hear it. Then there were the episodes of President Obama bowing to other world leaders. This cannot honestly be denied despite some of Obama’s advisors and acolytes doing so at the time. There is video evidence that leaves no doubt whatsoever. President Obama made a deep bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when he met him for the first time in the capital Riyadh. President Obama also bowed to Emperor Akihito of Japan, a medium bow as Obama’s bows go, and he bowed to Mexican President Filipe Calderon, a modest bow this time. Significantly President Obama did not bow when he met Queen Elizabeth. I believe that is significant because of the connection Obama has to Kenya and the former British Empire. Barack Obama’s paternal grandfather, who converted to Islam after he visited Zanzibar when he was 20 years old, for a while worked for the ruling British government in Kenya. His son, Barack’s father, hated the imperial British rulers and it would be unusual if some of that feeling did not rub off on the son. How much of the serious problems in the hot spots of the world can be blamed, at least in part, on the clearly failed policies of President Obama, and what, again in part, can be attributed to President Bush and what are neither at fault for? In my opinion Bush shares some of the blame for the havoc in Iraq for invading in the first place and not for invading, but for staying too long in Afghanistan after the Taliban were dislodged from power. There are more seriously adverse foreign problems now than in recent times: (1.) Complete Islamic extremism and chaos in Libya after the misguided overthrow of Gaddafi is largely Obama’s fault. (2.) The problem of Islamic butchers in Iraq is some of Bush’s fault, but more Obama’s for not acting soon enough to confront ISIS and even now responding too weakly. It turns out Obama has been getting daily briefs from the military & CIA for over a year and before that came out he tried to say he wasn’t significantly informed about the growing strength of ISIS – shame on him for trying to divert blame. (3.) The mistake of fostering the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and thereby allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to come to power was, at least temporarily, rescued by Gen. el-Sisi. (4.) ISIS grabbed a large chunk of Syria and set up their headquarters and training facilities there – again redounds to Obama. (5.) Russian President Putin seizing Crimea from Ukraine and is putting extreme pressure on the eastern part of Ukraine thereby trying to destabilize the Ukraine government in attempting to bring the whole country under Russian control. It is clear that Putin has absolutely no respect for Obama and holds him in contempt – the weakness of Obama has embolden Putin who recently said, “Do not mess with Russia as we are a major nuclear power” and “I could take Kiev in two weeks if I wanted to.” (6.) Iran also has no respect for Obama and I believe will go on to develop nuclear weapons and a missile system for both short and long range delivery. (7.) Hamas and the other Palestinians have neither fear nor respect for Obama. They are further encouraged by Obama trying to restrain Israel in this dispute. (8.) China is blustering and making aggressive moves concerning disputed land and sea territory against its neighbors, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan because it sees how weakly or not at all has been the response of Obama to other trouble spots in the world. It seems that the friends of the USA have no confidence in the Obama government and our enemies do not fear us in the least. There is nothing wrong with presidents being cautious and deliberative in their actions, especially the president of a country with potentially as much power as the USA, however when that results in chronic indecision and paralysis that is going too far. There are also the problems of President Obama words not matching his actions and sometimes his words not even matching his words. He will make a strong statement about an issue one day then back off the next and sometimes even in the same statement. This extends to his cabinet members who will make strong statements concerning positions of the administration and then being forced to essentially repudiate those words in the next day or two. I do not think it is inaccurate or unfair to state that President Obama’s foreign policy is hesitant, confused, and feckless. What really is the philosophy of President Obama in regard to this country? Some on the far right claim that he is dedicated to trying to destroy the country, but where is the real evidence for that and, by the way, what country does he and his family plan on living in after his presidency? That Obama, and incidentally, some Democrats in congress such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are trying to fundamentally change the country to make it more egalitarian and “fair” through the auspices of a big, overweening federal government seems clear. To quote what was discussed in a March 9, 1954 CBS TV broadcast by Edward R. Murrow when he was talking about Sen. Joseph McCarthy, “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he has grown so great (Julius Caesar Act I, Scene II)?" Upon what meat does President Obama feed? I would say it is the unconditional adulation of the left, in particular the far left including a largely supine Main Stream Media. The pity is he came into the presidency with such high hopes and expectations - perhaps too high of expectations for a mere mortal. Based on his words and actions or inactions, President Obama has demonstrated that he believes a less powerful USA, primarily militarily, but also economically and socially would benefit both this country and the rest of the world. The present chaos in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Egypt, Ukraine, and threats to the Far East with an increasing belligerent China belies that idea. The Ronald Reagan doctrine of Peace Through Strength appears to be valid for all times. The world is never a completely peaceful and tranquil place of course, however it is more so when the United States of America is strong and willing to use that strength or simply having the capability and will to use it even if not exercised. What does Barack Obama, and for that matter, Michele Obama really think of this country? Some clues might be that, in addition to not believing it is an exceptional country, in a speech in San Francisco Barack Obama once said that Middle America clings to its bibles and its guns. When her husband became the Democrat nominee for president of the United States in an unguarded and candid moment, Michele said, “For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country.” She was 44 years old. If someone disagrees with what I have written and wants to weigh in I would welcome it with the proviso that their opinions are supported with facts. Ensuite, veuillez le faire.

NOT ENOUGH TROUBLE IN THE WORLD - HOW ABOUT A CME?-77

Not enough to be concerned about what with ISIS in Iraq, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere (this is beginning to sound like the Billy Joel song “We Didn’t Start the Fire – with the lyrics of “Belgiums in the Congo”, “Trouble in the Suez”, “The Russians in Afghanistan”, and “The Ayatollah in Iran”); not to mention Hamas vs. the Israelis in Gaza, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, Russia in Ukraine, as well as our completely porous Southern border? Well, I have a bonus (in a manner of speaking) for you. How about a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME)? It has just been reported that one occurred on July 23, 2012. So what is the problem or in this case a near problem? Simply this: If the CME had occurred one week previously, then the earth would have been in its direct path. As it was it missed the earth. This CME was the most powerful one observed in more than 150 years. What would have happened if the earth had been in its path? Likely one of the greatest disasters in the history of the world since humans evolved. The Black Death of 1348-49 caused by plague resulted in the deaths of an estimated 75 million people worldwide. In Europe it is postulated that 33% of the population died and it took Europe 150 years to recover its population. Given that the world population was circa 370 million then compared to almost 7 ¼ billion now a similar plague would be more deadly now than then. Just so, this solar storm would have affected more people now. First however, allow me to explain what a CME is. There are four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Examples of plasma are lightening and sparks - air or other gases that become ironized. A CME is plasma that is ejected from the sun during solar storms. Plasma is the most abundant form of matter in the universe because most stars are in a plasma state. If directed at earth it interacts with our magnetosphere and that is just the beginning. This event begins as an explosion, a “solar flare”, x-rays and extreme UV radiation reach Earth at near light speed, ionizing the upper layers of our atmosphere. Then comes the CMEs, billion ton clouds of magnetized plasma that take a day or more to cross the Sun-Earth divide. If we had indeed been in the direct path of that solar storm then even those low information people would have been affected, especially the young ones who do not appear to be paying attention to anything; social, political, historical, or current events - only their own narrow interests. This would be one instance where they would pay attention. Their iPhones, iPads, and iPods, which appear to be grafted onto their hands, would not function anymore. Many satellites would be rendered floating pieces of junk in space. Power and communication grids on earth would be fried, causing many people a bit of inconvenience, one might say. Air-conditioning, heating, power equipment, severely curtailing of water supplies. Think of what the loss of computers would do to government, commercial businesses, hospitals and other medical facilities. You name it – modern life depends upon on a reliable electrical power supply. Scientists at NASA estimate that fixing the damage would cost in excess of $2 trillion. And that is just for starters when you think of all the devastation for commerce, transportation, agriculture, food stocks, fuel and water supplies, medical facilities, national security, and daily life in general. It is staggering to contemplate. Ironically perhaps, the 3rd world countries would be the least affected for obvious reasons. What is the evidence for this scenario? Two fold actually. By chance there was a solar observatory spacecraft, STEREO-A that was in the path of this CME so myriad data were collected. It did not get destroyed because it was designed to operate outside the Earth’s magnetosphere. Inside the Earth’s magnetosphere strong electric currents can be generated by a CME strike. Out in interplanetary space, the ambient magnetic field is much weaker, so those dangerous currents are missing. Another factor that made this CME potentially especially dangerous and destructive was that it was preceded a couple of days before by another one which cleared a path, much like a snowplow, for this one to travel faster and with more energy. In addition, in the past there was a previous CME that did strike the earth directly. In September 1859, in what was called the Carrington Solar Storm (check it out on the internet), the earth was in its direct path. What happened? Some things, but not a great deal which was destructive owing to that time not being in the electronic age. Telegraph pylons on poles were seen sparking starting a few fires in telegraph offices and giving telegraph operators electric shocks thereby disrupting normal operations. Some telegraph systems continued to send and receive messages despite having been disconnected from their power supplies. The Northern Lights were observed as far south as Queensland, Australia; Cuba; Hawaii; The Bahamas; and Jamaica. There was enough light in some places to easily read newspapers out-of-doors at night. The light appeared to cover the whole firmament, apparently like a luminous cloud with the light greater than that of the full moon. In 1859 English astronomer, Richard Carrington saw the instigating flare himself. In the days that followed his observation a series of powerful CMEs hit earth head-on with the potency not felt as observed before or since. According to a study by the National Academy of Sciences the July 2012 storm was, in all respects, at least as strong at the 1859 event, the only important difference is that it missed the Earth. If the earth were to experience a CME beamed directly at us then perhaps the dire and completely erroneous predictions of the loony biologist and author, Paul Ehrlich, in his 1968 book The Population Bomb where people would be starving by the hundreds of millions by the 1980’s owing to massive overpopulation relative to the food supply (an expedited version of the Malthusian Catastrophe), might come true for a completely different reason. In February 2014 physicist Pete Riley of Predictive Science Inc. calculated there was a 12% chance that the earth will be hit directly by a CME in the next 10 years. For reasons of advanced age I likely will not be overly affected by that, but it might give the younger folk pause.

THE SULTANA DISASTER & PRESIDENT LINCOLN-76

On April 27, 1865 at 2:00 A.M. the SS Sultana blew up and, engulfed in flames, sank in the Mississippi River 7-9 miles from Memphis, TN. Of the 2427 passengers on board an official number of 1800 died, either from drowning or were burnt to death. This was the greatest maritime disaster in US history until Pearl Harbor. The Sultana was a paddlewheel steamboat 260 ft. long, a 42 ft. beam, and weighted 1719 tons. It had four decks and a stated capacity of 376 people. This essay is the story of that disaster as told on a recent episode of History Detectives on the PBS TV network. Unlike most people, being an American Civil War buff, I was completely familiar with the sinking of the Sultana. What I did not know previously was the connection to President Abraham Lincoln. The ship was grossly and dangerously overloaded, having taken on mostly just released Union Army prisoners-of-war at Vicksburg, MS, some of them from the infamous Confederate concentration camp at Andersonville, GA. Why it was so overloaded, blew up, and how President Lincoln figured into it follows: Just a day or two before this disaster, a boiler on the ship had developed a crack that was discovered. A proper fix would have taken three or four days. Because there was money to be made in transporting just released prisoners-of war back to their homes with a great deal of competition from other ships, the boiler mechanic was told to make a temporary fix in one day. The federal government was paying $5 for every enlisted man and $10 for every officer taken on board ship – big money in those days. The explosion and fire resulted from a defective boiler and the vastly overloading of the ship, especially on the upper deck, caused the ship to rock back and forth. This rocking would make the water in the boilers slash back and forth, alternately leaving the red hot iron sides of the boilers without water, then bathing the sides of the boilers with water thereby generating copious amounts of steam until the defective boiler failed, setting off a chain reaction of exploding broilers. As it turned out, there were two other ships that came into the harbor at Vicksburg hoping to transport Union prisoners. After the Sultana was greatly overloaded there were no prisoners left for them to transport. How did that happen and why? Enter Reuben Hatch the Chief Quartermaster for the US Government at Vicksburg. His assistant tried to tell him that the Sultana was dangerously overloaded and some of the prisoners should be loaded on other ships. Hatch did not listen to him. Hatch had a checkered past, not to say a dishonest one. In 1861 he was court marshaled for over-charging the federal government for supplies by keeping two sets of books – one with charges that he submitted to the government and one that he paid the contractors with while keeping the difference for himself. When he got wind of the impending court marshal he hurriedly threw the false set of books into the Mississippi River. Unfortunately for him these books washed up on shore and were largely still legible. So he was cashiered out of the army and sent to prison, right? Not quite. In fact not at all and this is where President Lincoln comes into the story. The older brother of Reuben Hatch was Ozias Hatch, the Illinois Secretary of State with many influential and powerful political friends in that state as well as in Washington D.C. and he was a close friend and financial campaign contributor to another Illinois politician, Abraham Lincoln. Before the court marshal could start, Ozias Hatch wrote a letter to Lincoln on behalf of his brother saying the charges against his brother were frivolous and without merit. He asked if Lincoln could do anything about it. The letter was also signed by Richard Yates, the Governor of Illinois, and Jesse Dubois, the Illinois State Auditor. Lincoln forwarded the letter to Henry Halleck, his general-in-chief at the time and the head of the court marshal. Halleck wanted the trial go forward, but Lincoln wrote an endorsement to the letter stating that he knew Reuben Hatch and there was nothing against his character. The court marshal was dropped. In 1863 Hatch went AWOL from the army for three months. When he returned he not only wanted his job back, but a promotion in rank as well! Can you believe that guy? The Chief Quartermaster General of the US Army, Montgomery Meigs, said no whereupon Ozias Hatch again writes to Lincoln asking that his brother get his promotion. Lincoln writes to his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, to let Reuben Hatch off the hook for going AWOL and recommends that Hatch be promoted. He was promoted. Major General Ulysses Grant later promoted Reuben Hatch to Lieutenant Colonel in the Quartermaster Corp. At the start of the Civil War in early 1861, Ozias Hatch had recommended that Ulysses Grant, a graduate of West Point, but out of the army at that time, be appointed by the Governor of Illinois as a Colonel in the State Militia which he was. Two months before the Sultana disaster, Reuben Hatch was again brought before a military board on charges where it was stated in a preliminary report that of the 60 officers so charged, Hatch was one or two that could be compared in degree of deficiency. Once again Ozias Hatch interceded with Lincoln on behalf of his brother and Lincoln was happy to oblige. Not only was Reuben Hatch not charged, Lincoln even recommended that Reuben Hatch be promoted to full colonel two weeks before the Sultana disaster! Of course Lincoln had no idea that his actions would lead to such a tragedy. There were three commissions that looked into this disaster with the main one being headed by Illinois Republican Rep. Elihu Washbourne. Rueben Hatch ignored three subpoenas and did not testify before congress. He was never prosecuted and died in 1871 at age 53. Why was not more made of this disaster? The country was tired of war and all of the killing and maiming. Given that the death toll in the Civil War was an estimated 620,000 (more recently that figure is put by some historians at circa 750,000) 1800 more death was not something all that memorable, as callous as that seems now. And there was the business of the assassination of the then popular president of the United States. All of the reports and letters referred to above are part of the official records of the Civil War contained in the Federal Archives in Washington D.C. When shown copies of the archives documents concerning Lincoln and his relationship with the Hatch brothers, the prominent Civil War and Lincoln historian and author, Harold Holzer, opined that Lincoln was a consummate politician who used political appointments and political patronage to further his causes and was as effective with it as any politician. Holzer also said that if Lincoln had lived he would have had to answer for his involvement with the Sultana disaster. The big question is why did Lincoln exhibit such bad judgment in championing so dishonest and crooked a bureaucrat as Reuben Hatch? The answer lies in the politics of the day that is not that much different from now or previously. Like politicians then and now, Lincoln could be a political animal. We think of Lincoln today as this iconic president who could do no wrong. The perception then was quite different. Lincoln had many political enemies and the news media of the day, newspapers, even in the North, were sometimes brutal in their criticism and personal attacks upon him. Before the Republican presidential nominating convention in the summer of 1864 there were many influential Republicans who wanted to jettison Lincoln in favor of a less polarizing figure. Lincoln was looking for all of the political support he could get including from Illinois, hence his wanting to please Ozias Hatch and his political cronies. Even after Lincoln secured the Republican presidential nomination in 1864 and before Gen. Sherman captured the key Southern city of Atlanta, Gen. Sheridan denied the important agricultural Shenandoah Valley to the South and Adm. Farragut took Mobile Bay from the Confederates, Lincoln, a consummate vote counter, was convinced he was going to lose the election to his Democrat opponent, former Union Gen. George McClellan. The people in the North, not unlike now and during the Vietnam War, were war weary and saw no end to the conflict. After those important victories the end was in sight although more sacrifices were in store in the form of blood and treasure, but with the likelihood of ultimate victory and the end of hostilities. Many historians as well as other informed people (the uninformed don’t count), including me, believe that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were our two greatest presidents. That is not to say that even they did not have faults, and sometimes glaring ones. Still, it is not fair or accurate to ascribe to them the flaws in the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon where he saw a statue of gold, silver, brass, iron, and with feet of clay. When King George III of England heard that George Washington would voluntarily give up power after serving two four year terms as president of the United States he is reputed to have said that if he did he would be the greatest man alive. Washington set the standard limiting the presidency to two terms that was not violated until Franklin Roosevelt ran and was elected for a third and fourth term. The country was about to be engulfed in a great world war in the fall of 1940 so problematically he might be excused in his thinking that he was the best person to lead the country, however by the fall of 1944 it was clear that the Allies would win and Roosevelt was then suffering from serious heart disease. He should have quit at that point. Fortunately, (who says that congress does not do ANYTHING useful?) the XXII Amendment to the US Constitution enacted in 1951 limits the presidency to two elections and a maximum of 10 years for any individual. If Abraham Lincoln had been not so strong and resolute in his determination to keep the nation indivisible in the face of almost unimaginable adversity and seemingly intractable problems we would today be a series of “Balkanized” countries. As divided and divisive as we are today, and have been in the past, we are still one great nation. In general the US Presidency ages people (so far only men) with its great burdens and severe problems and as photographs show, Abraham Lincoln seemed to age physically at least 10 years in his four years as president. More than once he told people, to the effect, there was a tired spot in his psyche that he could not find rest for. He was under unrelenting pressure almost the entire time of his presidency. The killing, destruction, and the hatred of Northern and Southern Americans for each other were constantly palpable. Contrast that with WWII, as terrible as it was, where at least almost all the people were united in the defense of their one country. How lucky or providential we were as a nation to have a man such as Abraham Lincoln as its leader during those horrific times.

DEFICIENCES & ANNOYANCES-75

People are quite right to be tired of the story of that slug, Sterling and to the list can be added the fortunately now defunct story of the missing Malaysian aero-plane as tragic as it was, however there was quite quickly no additional reliable news to be reported so it was unnecessary for the news media to keep dragging out the story. The Benghazi episode is a different matter. It also illustrates a couple of important points. Presidential administrations have a tendency to conceal, obfuscate, and cover-up embarrassing mistakes and miscalculations and the current administration is one of the worst in that regard. When Republicans are in control of even one branch of congress they make a hash of their investigations. Instead of convening a half dozen House committees that have different objectives and prerogatives, are not well focused, and therefore are not efficiently conducted, a House Select Committee should have been setup from the start. Count on the Republicans to be stupid. At least the chairman of this now soon to be convened committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a former no nonsense prosecutor, is a good choice. It is now abundantly clear that the White House and the State Dept. changed the narrative of what caused the terrorist attack in Benghazi from an organized premeditated one to a spontaneous uprising based on an anti- Muslim video that practically no one saw. The objective was also clear. During the 2010 presidential campaign President Obama had said General Motors was alive and Osama ben Laden was dead and Al-Qaeda was on the run. This resurgence of an Al-Qaeda affiliate group in Libya did not mesh with the narrative put out by the Obama administration so it had to be changed even if that meant misleading the American public. As what happened became known and supporting facts slowly came out, poor Jay Carney had to twist himself into a pretzel to attempt to spin the story. As Charles Krauthammer said, “Carney is not paid enough for his job as Presidential Press Secretary.” There are still a number of important questions that the public has a right to know: 1.) Who in the White House and/or State Dept. selected Susan Rice and fed her false information to infamously disseminate to the public on those five TV shows on the following Sunday? The selection of Rice was curious in the first place because, as the American UN Ambassador, she was not directly involved. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton should have been the one doing the talking. 2.) Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, briefed Obama hours after the attack. At that point they knew that it was a planned terrorist attack. What did they tell the president? 3.) Hillary Clinton telephoned Obama around 10:00 P.M. that evening to discuss the attack. What did she tell him and what did they both do after that? We know Obama was never in the White House Situation Room and that he went on a fund raising trip to the West Coast the next day. 4.) Despite requests from American Ambassador Stevens and others in Libya for additions security none was ever given. Why not? And for that matter what was Ambassador Stevens doing in such a dangerous place as Benghazi, which was a hotbed of unrest and terrorism? 5.) Even if military help could not have arrived in time to save the four dead Americans during the seven hour attack, and that is a debatable point, why was no effort made? Especially in the military as they famously try to save their own. Let us hope that even at this late date the Special Committee in the House will be able to come up with some valid answers. Now for the IRS scandal. Once again the Republicans in congress showed how inept they are. The main key to unraveling the malfeasance of the IRS and the duplicity of the White House in targeting mainly conservative group for special scrutiny and delays in granting tax exempt 501c3 status to their organizations is the testimony of Lois Lerner. When Lerner testified in front of a House committee for the first time the committee chairman should have told her that if she read an opening statement (and he would certainly know that she would) vouching for her own integrity, lawfulness, and probity she could not then refuse to answer questions from the committee or else she would not be allowed to make a statement. As it is now there is this argument whether she waived her constitutional right not to incriminate herself by refusing to answer the committee’s questions after she gave her opening statement. Even so, she should now be granted immunity from prosecution in order to compel her to say what she knows about this whole affair, which must be considerable. The story originally put out by the White House was that a few rogue agents in the Cincinnati IRS office improperly targeted some conservative groups for special scrutiny by submitting voluminous and personal questions to be answered, not asked of liberal groups, after receiving their requests for tax-exempt status. This was followed by long delays in considering the requests, again not imposed on liberal groups. Even Jay Carney at first was taking this line. The story had to change once e-mails concerning this matter came to light leading President Obama, in an interview, to say to Bill O’Reilly there not a “smidgen of corruption” involving the IRS after initially saying that he was outraged by the appearance of impropriety and would get the bottom of it. It is interesting that conservative Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, has received more pertinent and less redacted e-mails from the Administration by filing FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests than congressional committees have been able to obtain. It is clear that this administration does not respect the Republican House of Representatives, but does not want to get into a fight with the federal courts and all the controversy that would engender. It was in one of those e-mails that ensnared Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser, Ben Rhodes, and tied the White House directly to the IRS scandal. One would hope and expect that the House committees investigating the IRS would do so in an objective manner, searching for the truth and not resorting to partisan politics against the presidential administration. If they do not then it will redound to the benefit of Democrats and the administration, as a large percentage of people will be turned off by it as politics as usual in Washington. However, if the committees do their investigations fairly and objectively and it is Democrats who are viewed as obstructionists then it is they who will experience adverse effects in the November elections. A further ever growing, bipartisan scandal has now enveloped the White House. This is malfeasance by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Here the usual luck of President Obama has run out. Problems with the medical services and competency of the VA have been ongoing for decades without it blowing up into a full pledged scandal until now. A warning was given by the Bush team to the Obama team during the transitioning of the Bush administration to the Obama administration, yet nothing of any substance was done, nor had the Bush administration delved into it adequately during its time in office. However, it would be fair to say that with the country in a possible economic meltdown there were more pressing problems that needed to be addressed. Still, once this crisis had passed more could have been done. Further, at this time a new element has emerged which is the keeping of off-the-books lists of veterans who needed medical attention, but whose appointments were not officially listed until later and some times much later so as to make it seem that waiting times were considerably shorter than they actually were. Especially egregious were the conditions of the untreated veterans who died waiting for medical help. This situation has outraged Democrats in congress as well as Republicans, as well it might, for moral and political reasons. With bipartisan inquires and probing into these problems with the VA this issue is not going away any time soon and, unlike the other administration scandals, will not be largely ignored by the Main Stream Media (MSM). On Nov. 12, 2007 then Senator Obama said, “After seven years [this] administration has …..neglected the planning and preparation necessary to care for our returning heroes…..” And in 2012 President Obama continued to favorably compare the performance of the VA during his administration to Bush’s. What was it that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said about chickens coming home to roost? There are exceptions on all sides of course, but as a general proposition I believe it can be said apodictically that Republicans are stupid, Democrats venal, and the MSM, since Obama first became a presidential candidate, previously was biased on the left has now evolved into being downright corrupt in either how political and social news are reported or not reported.

THE MOVIE NOAH VS. THE BIBLE STORY-74

This is about the movie NOAH vis-à-vis the Bible from which the movie was ostensibly and loosely based, as are many movies that are made from stories in books. The director of the movie, Darren Aronofsky, is an atheist so the name God was never mentioned explicitly in the movie and he said that Noah was a drunk. I was curious about that so I consulted the ultimate source, the Holy Bible. In the King James Version of the Bible in Genesis chapters 6 – 9, the word “God” is mentioned 19 times and the word “Lord” 11 times (If I have counted correctly). In the Bible story, God is punishing mankind because, except for Noah and his family, there are too many iniquitous and sinful people. The movie has a different take. The people are transgressing against Gaia; in other words Mother Earth. They were despoiling the planet. Naturally with their polluting automobiles, coal-fired electricity generating plants, nuclear power plants, and aeroplanes fouling the skies what is there not to object to in bringing down the wraith of God on the people in the form of drowning them. There is something not exactly correct about that postulation that I can’t quite seem to grasp. Perhaps the answer is that I am confusing their times with modern times. Do you think so? Understand that I love sarcasm, when deserved. Compared to now and even the conditions on the planet before dispositive rapscallion man populated the earth, those people in Genesis husbanded a practically pristine environment. What were those idiotic movie people going on about? The movie NOAH is a $132,000,000 extravaganza that tells a rollickingly good yarn, but it is not to be confused with what is presented in the Bible. Even given there are 138 minutes of movie time to fill that could hardly be done using only the four chapters of Genesis where the adventures and misadventures of Noah are told, the departures and outright contradictions in the movie compared to the Bible story make the movie a secular presentation of the story of Noah. I would guess that most truly religious people, including Jews and Muslims, but especially Christians, would find the movie somewhat objectionable. What I also discovered in the Bible is that Noah fathered three sons at age 500 years. He was 600 years, one month, and 17 days old when he entered the ark. Everyone, except the students at American University in Washington D.C. where a number of them were recently interviewed and only one could name even one US Senator, although nearly all knew that the hit song “Let It Go” was from the movie “Frozen”, has heard that Noah sent out a dove to check the water level three times (the last time the dove did not return to the ark), but did you know, according to the Good Book, Noah first sent out a raven? After the flood was over and the occupants of the ark had resettled on the land, Noah planted a vineyard and made wine from the grapes. He then proceeded to drink the wine and got drunk. It does not say that he did this more than once. Noah lived another 350 years after the flood, dying at the age of 950 years. And why not? He was the grandson of Methuselah, who, according to the Bible, lived to the ripe old age of 969 years. Some scholars have postulated that months were counted as years, but that is negated because these same units were used to count the age of Noah's father who would by that reckoning have been 5 years old when he fathered his first son. Consider that these Biblical people lived to great ages unheard of in these modern times. And they did so without modern medicine. No hospitals, antibiotics, myriad other drugs, current surgery techniques, or treatments for cancer and other ailments, inter alia. Those people must have been hardy indeed. Of course there is another explanation that is not as paralogistically challenged. They did not live nearly as long as was written in the Bible. To be rational and believe that is then to cast doubt on the literal interpretation of all the stories in the Bible. One cannot reasonably pick and chose which stories in the Bible to believe and which to cast aside. Much better in my opinion is to treat them all the same as allegories that strive to make moral points rather than being historically accurate. Flood stories predate the version in the Bible. Several ancient cultures in the West and in the East have recounted similar events where all of the known world or at least much of it was inundated with water. It strains credulity and violates logic and reason to ascribe these floods to the entire globe. Widespread localized floods perhaps, with the one in the Bible no exception. Does everyone who fancy themselves to be rationally and logically thinking beings really believe that the Biblical Flood actually put the entire earth under water? I would hope not. Interesting book, the Bible, especially the story of Noah, which is one of the very first in the Old Testament. Considering what I have recounted here perhaps is it not only such a so-called religion as Scientology that is a bit out of kilter in some aspects.

SELF-IDENTIFIED FRAUD-73

Who am I referring to? Why myself of course. After I have explained you may say, “tut, tut”, but I do not believe you will be too censorious of me. There were extenuating circumstances, as you shall see. In the late 1980’s or there abouts, the upper management of the corporation I worked for, Mobil Oil, decided to embrace the business fad of the day which was called New Culture. In the august wisdom (read ironic sarcasm into my words if you wish) of top Mobil management the publicity for being all inclusive and seemingly highly caring for the workforce of the corporation outweighed any additional expense incurred. Therefore seminars were set up for groups of employees to inculcate this New Culture into the Zeitgeist of the workforce. As I remember it employees in the building where I worked, including professionals, technicians, and secretaries, were put in groups according to what floor they work on to attend a couple of hours seminar continued for several days to discuss and be lectured on this concept of New Culture. An outside consulting company ran the seminars. There were a couple of useful features in it such that when teams are formed to work on particular company projects not only is it logical and necessary to have people on the team with different skills and specialties, but also with different personalities such as those who were spontaneous and quick with new ideas, even if some of the ideas were off-the-wall crazy and people who were more deliberate and well grounded if not as original in their thinking. At any rate I decided to have some fun with it because everyone knew that the whole thing was a business fad sold to the management of Mobil and was largely, even if not completely, a waste of everyone’s time. Ok, so how did I approach this sham of workforce propaganda? Simple. Knowing that the participants would be classified into categories of whether they were outgoing and spontaneous or reserved and contemplative I chose to deliberately and artificially exhibit characteristics of the former classification. My excuse was that I was just a few years away from wanting to retire so I allowed myself to make a game of it. I would not be too obvious or divulge to anyone what I was doing because I wanted to retire in a few years, not immediately. I rather logically figured that upper management would not be particularly pleased if word got out that I was playing games with their current pet project. The owner of this small consulting company had a couple of assistants who conducted seminars at our building as he did himself. I was in a seminar conducted by the owner who at least gave the impression of being confident in what he was doing. From the start of the first seminar session I was quick to both attempt to answer any questions asked by the seminar conductor and to be the first to weigh in on any issue or subject under discussion. At one point I attempted to immediately answer a question asked by the seminar conductor and as I was answering it I was thinking about it and started to moderate my answer as I continued to talk. He was quick to pick up on that and explained to the class that I was so prone to responding quickly before I had a chance to really evaluate the question that as I was talking I was thinking about it and changing my answer as I went on. Later on in the seminar as my immediate responses continued, the fellow commented that if I were in a room full of strangers I would make the rounds in the room and become the first person to be acquainted with everyone there. I smiled at this ersatz observation, but did not say anything. In the final evaluation by the consulting company, the group I was in was considered the most outgoing and spontaneous. We had some real extroverts in our group including professional explorationists, technicians, and one secretary in particular who was as talkative and voluble as anyone. Yet I was considered the most extroverted of all! Sacrebleu! I had successfully pulled off a great hoax. So confident was he in his evaluation of me that neither I nor anyone else could have convinced the consulting company owner who was our seminar leader what I had done; never in 1000 years would he have believed or have admitted he had been hoaxed. At work the day after the seminar ended people I knew would come up to me and express surprise that I was judged the most outgoing employee of all the groups. I would inevitably respond that it surprised me too, yet that was the conclusion of the consulting company. I did not tell anyone the truth until after I retired. I am no dummy. What to take away from this by now long ago experience? One thing is that if I, a rank amateur in the field of deception, could fool so many people so easily, including a man who fancied himself an expert in judging the personalities of people, then what could an experienced con man do? Clearly it is still the old, old lesson in being wary of what people say and do unless verified by facts. Years ago there was a best selling book titled Games People Play. Even without reading it I seemed to have mastered the art of whatever stratagems some people employ in their relations with others, as judged by what I have read of the book reviews. I suppose I could also claim that such an innocuous game as I played did no real harm to anybody. And I certainly enjoyed it. Now that you know the story of my deception, if I were one accustomed to betting I would put my money on you not judging me too harshly.

TO A MOUSE & BIRD-72

My apologies to the 18th century Scottish poet, Robert Burns, for paraphrasing the title of one of his epic poems. What my essay undertakes to comment on is my experience in 2013 with rats (which are overgrown mice really), squirrels, and the birds that I supply with supplementary victuals in the form of commercially available birdseeds. In spring of 2013 we installed a four perch cylindrical bird feeder, first in our patio, then moved it to the area just outside of our kitchen bay window on the other side of the house. For two days or so the birds were nonplused and as frustrated and confused as their little birdbrains could be. In those inchoate conditions some even flew through the air space where the feeder had been hanging apparently trying to sort out whether their eyes were deceiving them and the feeder was actually still there, but invisible. No, sadly it was gone. Not to be overly concerned – within two to three days our little avian friends discovered its new location. C’est bon - all was now well. Well, actually not completely well – a new species had discovered the free food source. Mr. Rat and his extended family now began feasting on the bounty. I put the seeds out for the birds so, quo jure, did this rodent conclude that he could share in ingesting the seeds? One evening we saw as many as four rats at one time on the feeder or in a small tree next to the feeder waiting their turn. I vowed that putatively this would not do; absolutely would not do. Time to take “arms against a sea of troubles” as the Bard of Avon phrased it. Rat traps were the ticket to end this intrusion on the feeding of the birds, and the more the better. Still, some precaution was in order to prevent trapping the naïve little feathered creatures. The first night I set out four traps on the ground around the feeder, baited with peanut butter. The next morning – nothing. After consulting with our daughter who had experience with birds, rats and such, she suggested using the seeds themselves as bait. The next morning - success. Four traps set out and 4 rats caught; the following morning 4 traps & 3 rats; then 4 traps & again 3 rats; 4 traps 2 rats; and 4 traps 1 rat. All totaled that summer there were 30 rats caught in traps and slain, big, small, & in between, in that area and on the patio where the rats were eating flower petals. I am glad and relieved to say that nary a bird was caught in a trap. I would set the traps out at night after the birds had stopped coming to the feeder and retrieve them early in the morning before the birds had commenced breaking their nightly fast (breakfast). Indeed, to almost quote the late actor James Cagney, those hapless, but far from helpless, dirty rats (Cagney actually said “you dirty, yellow-bellied rat” in a 1932 movie) found out their “best-laid schemes…. Aft gang agley.” Early on when the feeder was transferred to its new location there was another species that was interested in getting to the comestibles. It was a bushy tailed critter known as a “tree rat” or squirrel. These animals have a reputation for being persistent in their endeavors to gain access to food. That reputation is deserved. In particular, one indefatigably risible squirrel made a game and persistent attempt to get on the feeder. First he would try to egress the top of the fence going to the top of the feeder, but the rain guard on the feeder was unstable so he was unsuccessful after multiple tries. Then he would reach out from a limb of a nearby small tree and eventually made it. Not for long. After we pruned any branch from the tree that he could use to access the feeder he was stymied. The fellow returned a couple times in the next few days – all to no avail and apparently realizing that apodictically he would not success, he gave up in abject frustrated failure. Now about the birds. The species that came to the feeder either regularly or sporadically were sparrows, finches, cardinals, blue jays, and mourning doves. The smallest birds (sparrows & finches) often would come in large motley groups of from ½ dozen to a baker’s dozen at the same time. Naturally they would then fight each other for a place on one of the four perches or on the pan at the bottom of the feeder. I tried to get across to them that if they came in fewer numbers at a time there would be more eating and less fighting. I was not successful in conveying this stratagem to them. In this regard they were not unlike miscreant little human children. There was one sparrow that hung out alone at the feeder for hours. After the little bird’s appetite was sated he just sat on a perch on the feeder some times even with his eyes closed. Clearly he felt safe and serene in that location and would not stir until another bird or birds came to the feeder. This went on for weeks until he was seen no more. Likely he was done in by his natural life expectancy or by predation. Later there was a finch that became a semi-permanent resident (in a manner similar to the Arthur Conan Doyle story of the Resident Patient) although at longer intervals and shorter durations than the original sparrow. The cardinals, both male and female, but especially the males, are extremely wary or more judgmentally, cowardly in their reaction to humans even with a number of feet of distance and windows between them and us humans. They would fly away far more quickly and precipitously than other birds. As could be expected, with inclement weather, the bird traffic at the feeder increased and as I have indicated would, at times, become intense. Although usually one or two mourning doves would visit the feeder at the same time, sometimes there were more. One day I counted 5 of them on the feeder, on the fence next to the feeder, or on the ground gathering in the seeds that had dropped or had carelessly been ejected from the feeder by dissipative and undisciplined fellow flying creatures. At one point there was the episode of the male (red) cardinal, overcoming his usual reticence, feeding what was obviously his two offspring. The adult would get a seed or two from the feeder and go to either the nearby top of the fence or a limb of the small tree next to the feeder where the young cardinals were waiting and feed them beak-to-beak. Mr. Cardinal would continue this procedure several times at the same feeding and repeated it over several days. In fact we observed the youngling cardinals getting bigger over this interval of several days (young birds grow really quickly) such that they were fully 2/3 the size of their father by the end of this time with the feathers of one turning increasingly red and the other not. With one appearing to be a male and the other a female and the two almost certainly coming from separate eggs laid within minutes of each other, would they not be considered dizygotic twins? Talk about human parents pushing their overgrown offspring figuratively out of the nest, here was a poor harried and probably not too bright bird father feeding his offspring when clearly the young birds were fully capable of getting their own seeds out of the feeder. This is an obvious example that lazy ingrate offspring are not limited to the human species. Even though birds are not receptive to taking direction and advice they also much refrain from complaining – about anything. Never did I discern any grousing (so to speak) or whining about the type or lack of variety of the proffered provender. Try that with humans, especially teens and tweens. And by that I do not mean seeds, but foodstuffs that some people, normal people, would find tasty and nutritious and come back for 2nd helpings. Although I am not an inveterate birdwatcher whose métier is to go traipsing off into the woods to observe or listen to the many species of these fascinating fowl I do derive some enjoyment and relaxation in occasionally watching them congregate just outside (and I want to emphasize OUTSIDE) our kitchen bay window as they feast and fight and in general act in a termagant manner with their fellow species. Puck, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, was incomplete when he said “Lord, what fools these mortals be”, referring to humans. He could have included the devilish little creatures in the class: Aves. N’est-ce pas?