Thursday, February 22, 2007
Un-freaking-believable.............
I'm amazed, disgusted, disappointed, yet not surprised. All that and more, at the amount of attention being paid to the fate of Anna Nicole Smith's mortal coil. Good lord people. Are we THIS desperate for things to distract us??
Have we sunk so low that we're mesmerized by the mechanizations of a publicity hound judge and about a dozen people whose true motivations I suspect involve about 50 million cool ones and not the fate of a poor little orphan??
Really????
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. Guy watching his TV, which informs him "And remember, we wouldn't show crap like this if people like you didn't watch it all the time!!!"
"Honey?? The Huns are banging on the gates again!! Throw them some more raw meat, will ya? On second thought, toss 'em Anna!!"
"We have met the enemy, and he is us!"
Pogo
Have we sunk so low that we're mesmerized by the mechanizations of a publicity hound judge and about a dozen people whose true motivations I suspect involve about 50 million cool ones and not the fate of a poor little orphan??
Really????
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. Guy watching his TV, which informs him "And remember, we wouldn't show crap like this if people like you didn't watch it all the time!!!"
"Honey?? The Huns are banging on the gates again!! Throw them some more raw meat, will ya? On second thought, toss 'em Anna!!"
"We have met the enemy, and he is us!"
Pogo
Get Out And Start Walking Folks.........
Good afternoon, this is your captain speaking. I would like to request that everyone near a window please open it up, stick your arm out, and start flapping like crazy.......
It seems that last August, an American Airlines flight (#489) was inbound to the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport. During the approach, pilot called the control center to declare a fuel emergency. He requested a straight-in approach to the airport's southbound center parallel runway, (17C) an approach that would get him on the ground in the least amount of time as safely as possible. Incredibly, he was REFUSED that request, and told to expect a normal landing pattern for a northbound runway in use at that time. The pilot said that was not going to be acceptable, and re-requested the center parallel. Once again, he was refused and asked if he wanted to re-direct to another airport. This would have involved interrupting all of the pilot's emergency procedures, forcing them to look for new approach plates and make changes in altitude and headings, all of which would have burned up time and distracted the pilots from their primary job at hand, managing their fuel situation and getting the plane down safely. The pilot knuckled under to the knuckle head controller, and finally accepted the NB runway assignment. Luckily, he was able to land without incident.
Film at ten.
I am speechless..........
Well, almost:
For those of you who aren't up on aviation procedures, trust me when I tell you that pilots do not make fuel emergency declarations lightly. FARs require that whenever you fly to a specific destination, you must have a fuel reserve of a certain amount. It's a percentage of the flight duration. If you don't have enough fuel reserve, you either use shorter legs, allowing for refueling, or remove weight from the aircraft (cargo & baggage) to allow enough fuel to be added to meet the minimums. Every commercial flight made involves these calculations. Every single one. If these calcs aren't made, the flight is illegal before it even pushes back from the gate, and no self respecting PIC would forgo them. None. Allow me to repeat that. No self respecting PIC would forgo the fuel and weight and balance calculations. None.
Got that? Good. Now, if a pilot declares a fuel emergency, as this one did, then that could mean several things.
1. They miscalculated the amount of fuel required for the trip.
2. They didn't do the weights and balance calculations correctly and therefore was heavier (Which takes more fuel to push through the sky.) than they thought.
Either of these situations infer that the flight crew has made a serious mistake, putting many souls in danger. Yet, if the PIC declares the emergency anyway, he/she is putting their personal and professional reputations and their jobs at risk for the sake of the passengers. Something they are legally obligated to do. And 99.5% of the ATP's out there WILL do that.
3. They had a mechanical problem. Either a fuel leak from a tank or associated part, or a mechanical problem, such as a fuel valve or pump or line or whatever leaking. Or it could have been an associated pump or valve not functioning, which makes fuel from a certain tank unavailable for use. In that case, for all intents and purposes, that fuel might as well not even be on the plane.
In this situation, there's no way for the pilot to know for certain just how much fuel is left, and whether what you DO have left isn't coming out of the aircraft before you have a chance to get it on the ground. This pilot had no way of knowing for certain that a possible dribble from a tank wouldn't turn into a gusher before he was on the ground. Neither did the controller. The last is a VERY important point. The controller is not flying this aircraft. The PIC is. FAR part 91, Sec 91.3, line b spells it all out. "In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency."
Thus, the call as to which runway to use belonged to the PIC, not the controller. Landing on 17C may have made the controllers job harder, but that is what they are paid for. The crew was already coping with one serious problem. The controller should be helping. Not throwing up additional obstacles. This means if the pilot thinks he needs runway 13c, and the controller tells him no, the pilot should still make his approach to runway 13c, and proceed to land. Now if that sounds rash to you, trust me, it isn't. The pilot is the one flying the aircraft, NOT the controller. I know, I know, I said that before, but I can't emphasize that enough. Trust me, the controllers would have diverted whatever traffic needed diverting if the PIC had said "I need to get on the ground now. The runway assignment is unacceptable. I intend to land on 13C. Please make your traffic adjustments accordingly." Other pilots in the area and on the ground would have had NO trouble with making delays and adjustments to help out. Now of course, line c means he'll have to justify his actions, but I don't think that would have been a problem in this case. The FAA and the NTSB take fuel problems VERY seriously, and are loath to persecute pilots about them, (Please refer to the title of this post.) if the pilot has a good faith reason to believe he has a problem. In this case, the pilot stated he's suspecting a fuel leak. As stated before, he has NO WAY of knowing if the problem is going to get worse.
The upshot is that, thankfully, no one was hurt. There's a whole lot of finger pointing going on. The controller says his supervisor made the call, and the FAA says the call was the controller's. I personally believe the pilot should have stood up to the controller, but that's not really the point. In my estimation, the controllers who made this call need to either find a new career, or get an assignment to some backwater one-hanger field in northern Alaska. A certain now-retired senior heavy captain I'm familliar with would have used the runway he wanted, and after landing would have gone into the control room and personally dismembered the controller responsible for the decision.
That would have been fun to see!!
(Special thanks to TUA!)
An update:
It seems that last August, an American Airlines flight (#489) was inbound to the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport. During the approach, pilot called the control center to declare a fuel emergency. He requested a straight-in approach to the airport's southbound center parallel runway, (17C) an approach that would get him on the ground in the least amount of time as safely as possible. Incredibly, he was REFUSED that request, and told to expect a normal landing pattern for a northbound runway in use at that time. The pilot said that was not going to be acceptable, and re-requested the center parallel. Once again, he was refused and asked if he wanted to re-direct to another airport. This would have involved interrupting all of the pilot's emergency procedures, forcing them to look for new approach plates and make changes in altitude and headings, all of which would have burned up time and distracted the pilots from their primary job at hand, managing their fuel situation and getting the plane down safely. The pilot knuckled under to the knuckle head controller, and finally accepted the NB runway assignment. Luckily, he was able to land without incident.
Film at ten.
I am speechless..........
Well, almost:
For those of you who aren't up on aviation procedures, trust me when I tell you that pilots do not make fuel emergency declarations lightly. FARs require that whenever you fly to a specific destination, you must have a fuel reserve of a certain amount. It's a percentage of the flight duration. If you don't have enough fuel reserve, you either use shorter legs, allowing for refueling, or remove weight from the aircraft (cargo & baggage) to allow enough fuel to be added to meet the minimums. Every commercial flight made involves these calculations. Every single one. If these calcs aren't made, the flight is illegal before it even pushes back from the gate, and no self respecting PIC would forgo them. None. Allow me to repeat that. No self respecting PIC would forgo the fuel and weight and balance calculations. None.
Got that? Good. Now, if a pilot declares a fuel emergency, as this one did, then that could mean several things.
1. They miscalculated the amount of fuel required for the trip.
2. They didn't do the weights and balance calculations correctly and therefore was heavier (Which takes more fuel to push through the sky.) than they thought.
Either of these situations infer that the flight crew has made a serious mistake, putting many souls in danger. Yet, if the PIC declares the emergency anyway, he/she is putting their personal and professional reputations and their jobs at risk for the sake of the passengers. Something they are legally obligated to do. And 99.5% of the ATP's out there WILL do that.
3. They had a mechanical problem. Either a fuel leak from a tank or associated part, or a mechanical problem, such as a fuel valve or pump or line or whatever leaking. Or it could have been an associated pump or valve not functioning, which makes fuel from a certain tank unavailable for use. In that case, for all intents and purposes, that fuel might as well not even be on the plane.
In this situation, there's no way for the pilot to know for certain just how much fuel is left, and whether what you DO have left isn't coming out of the aircraft before you have a chance to get it on the ground. This pilot had no way of knowing for certain that a possible dribble from a tank wouldn't turn into a gusher before he was on the ground. Neither did the controller. The last is a VERY important point. The controller is not flying this aircraft. The PIC is. FAR part 91, Sec 91.3, line b spells it all out. "In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency."
Thus, the call as to which runway to use belonged to the PIC, not the controller. Landing on 17C may have made the controllers job harder, but that is what they are paid for. The crew was already coping with one serious problem. The controller should be helping. Not throwing up additional obstacles. This means if the pilot thinks he needs runway 13c, and the controller tells him no, the pilot should still make his approach to runway 13c, and proceed to land. Now if that sounds rash to you, trust me, it isn't. The pilot is the one flying the aircraft, NOT the controller. I know, I know, I said that before, but I can't emphasize that enough. Trust me, the controllers would have diverted whatever traffic needed diverting if the PIC had said "I need to get on the ground now. The runway assignment is unacceptable. I intend to land on 13C. Please make your traffic adjustments accordingly." Other pilots in the area and on the ground would have had NO trouble with making delays and adjustments to help out. Now of course, line c means he'll have to justify his actions, but I don't think that would have been a problem in this case. The FAA and the NTSB take fuel problems VERY seriously, and are loath to persecute pilots about them, (Please refer to the title of this post.) if the pilot has a good faith reason to believe he has a problem. In this case, the pilot stated he's suspecting a fuel leak. As stated before, he has NO WAY of knowing if the problem is going to get worse.
The upshot is that, thankfully, no one was hurt. There's a whole lot of finger pointing going on. The controller says his supervisor made the call, and the FAA says the call was the controller's. I personally believe the pilot should have stood up to the controller, but that's not really the point. In my estimation, the controllers who made this call need to either find a new career, or get an assignment to some backwater one-hanger field in northern Alaska. A certain now-retired senior heavy captain I'm familliar with would have used the runway he wanted, and after landing would have gone into the control room and personally dismembered the controller responsible for the decision.
That would have been fun to see!!
(Special thanks to TUA!)
An update:
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Bubba, Microsquish, And You........
About 15 years ago many of the car, appliance, and vending machine manufacturers, giddy over the new generation of digital micro computer chips becoming available, started using them in their products. VCRs, which until then had clock like timers and "push/click" type controls, gained digital controls, and menu driven timer settings. Some cars got all digital dashes, and all of them got a new generation of computer controlled emission devices along with electronic ignitions, and the next generation of fuel injection systems. Carburetors became a thing of the past. TV sets started getting away from the old rotary "click" type channel selectors, and started using the new electronic style tuners instead. Vending machines started gaining electronic controls too, giving buyers more (but not necessarily better) choices. Along with all of this came an explosion of remote controls. It's not unusual anymore to find a basket or drawer with about a dozen, mostly unused, remotes in the average house.
This was truly a revolution, these digital chips. For better or for worse, our devices became more complex, more capable, and for many people, more frustrating to use. The now-popular image of the befuddled adult watching his 5 year old program the VCR emerged. All over America, VCR clocks blinked "12:00" never to see another number. A lot of people were doing good just to find the damn "play" button. I talked to a Ford mechanic once, and he told me every spring, and fall, they'd get a legion of silver haired folks showing up at their garages, complaining of an odd, now-gone noise or rattle, and "Oh, by the way. While you're at it, could you please set that damn clock???"
All of this met with varying degrees of success or failure. Cars, due to the newest generation of micro-chips finally started getting away from the under hood maze of leak-prone vacuum hoses used to control the first generation of smog controls. Instead, they gained electronic controls and cars actually became more reliable, and trouble free. Oh, don't give me that. YES THEY HAVE!! In the '50's and '60's, if a car made it to 100,000 miles, it was considered a major miracle, to be accompanied with pictures of the odometer at 99999.9 and then 100000.0. People would stand around in awe of the achievement. Now, cars get to 100,000 miles before the owner even considers changing the spark plugs, something that used to be done every 10,000 miles. I recently sold a Ford Ranger that made it to 525,000 miles before we sent it on its way last spring. Used to be, to start a car with a carburetor, you'd depress the pedal once to set the choke, wait a second, and turn the key. On a super cold day, if it hadn't started within 60-90 seconds, you'd probably flooded the engine and you were screwed. Call AAA, and wait a couple of hours. I went out to start one of our cars on a -25 below morning recently. Now this car had sat unused for a couple of weeks. That used to mean the kiss of death. I turned the key (No pumping!) and within 5 seconds, the thing was sitting there purring away. Unheard of 20 years ago. Modern cars are more powerful, more reliable, get better mileage and last longer. The only drawback is that when they DO break down, due to the electronics, they can be tougher to fix.
Not everything has been smooth sailing. For a short period of time, voices were being added to things like cars, appliances, and vending machines. People DETESTED them. It wasn't long before car owners were taking their cars in to have the voice silenced. Same for appliances and vending machines. Manufacturers were sitting on warehouses full of these machines with voices, which eventually had to be turned off before they could be sold. Why? It was summed up succinctly by a man who told his Mazda dealer "My kids talk back to me, my workers talk back to me, even my damn dog talks back to me. I don't need my car talking back to me too!!!" As noted before, when things DO break down, they can be harder to fix. I also noted the explosion of remote controls, most of them unused in the long run.
I believe we're on the cusp of another revolution of electronic controls, driven in large part by the newest generation of machines being able to talk with each other wirelessly. The best example of this I can mention is "Blue Tooth." Here's a explanation of Blue Tooth in Wikipedia.
All of this may, or may not be good. Microsquish has a strangle hold on computer operating systems, much to the chagrin and regret of computer nerds, and I'm one of them. The only reason I use Windoze is because the software I want to use requires it. A smart move on Bill Gates' part,(Hereafter refered to as Bubba.) bad for us. Back in the "good ole days" I had Windoze 3.1 installed on my computer, but I never used it. I used DOS instead, as it took up much less resident memory than Windoze. I would always boot the computer on DOS, install the graphics and sound drivers if needed and then just typed in the run commands for the programs I wanted to use. Especially good for games because the available memory wasn't hogged by the OS and the software ran much better. Most savvy users did this. Bubba knew that, so he started convincing the software companies to require Windoze to be running while using their programs. This did several things, all good for the companies and bad for us. It required people like me to either upgrade their computers or buy new ones, and buy the Windoze OS. Good for Bubba but bad for us. He's got the OS market locked up. They've done everything they can to dominate, and dominate they have. There are Apple users out there, but they're a minority, and always will be. I think they like it like that actually. Now, we have the newest generation of Windoze, Vista, being installed in the newest generation of computers. It's getting mixed reviews. It's not being recommended for older computers. The version of XP I bought about a year and a half ago is working fine, and I've no plans on replacing it anytime soon.
Now Bubba wants to extend Microsquish's reach into other things, like the electronic systems of house hold appliances, watches, TV's stereos, well, you get the idea. Bubba and Co. would love it if EVERYTHING used Windoze. Our first MrCoffee coffee maker, a wedding present, was finally replaced in 2002. It had one on/off switch. That was it. That thing made us coffee for 22 years before croaking. Think the new one with digital controls will last that long? I doubt it. But I'm sure as hell not going to toss it out out and buy a new one simply because this has come out. But if Bubba has his way with us, (And so far, he has.) we might be replacing appliances like this simply because Windoze won't support the software any more, forcing new purchases of hard and software. Good for Bubba and Co. but bad for us. (Gee, where have I heard that before???) How good this will be remains to be seen. Bubba isn't the only one out there making this happen. Microsquish has competitors who want a piece of the pie. For now, at least. Remember that Bubba and Co. have shown an amazing talent for flattening his competition. If he manages to do it again, get ready to bend over and grab your ankles. And brace yourself. It won't be much fun.
"People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was invented, didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered engines... There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time, people will come to accept their silicon masters."
Bill Gates
This was truly a revolution, these digital chips. For better or for worse, our devices became more complex, more capable, and for many people, more frustrating to use. The now-popular image of the befuddled adult watching his 5 year old program the VCR emerged. All over America, VCR clocks blinked "12:00" never to see another number. A lot of people were doing good just to find the damn "play" button. I talked to a Ford mechanic once, and he told me every spring, and fall, they'd get a legion of silver haired folks showing up at their garages, complaining of an odd, now-gone noise or rattle, and "Oh, by the way. While you're at it, could you please set that damn clock???"
All of this met with varying degrees of success or failure. Cars, due to the newest generation of micro-chips finally started getting away from the under hood maze of leak-prone vacuum hoses used to control the first generation of smog controls. Instead, they gained electronic controls and cars actually became more reliable, and trouble free. Oh, don't give me that. YES THEY HAVE!! In the '50's and '60's, if a car made it to 100,000 miles, it was considered a major miracle, to be accompanied with pictures of the odometer at 99999.9 and then 100000.0. People would stand around in awe of the achievement. Now, cars get to 100,000 miles before the owner even considers changing the spark plugs, something that used to be done every 10,000 miles. I recently sold a Ford Ranger that made it to 525,000 miles before we sent it on its way last spring. Used to be, to start a car with a carburetor, you'd depress the pedal once to set the choke, wait a second, and turn the key. On a super cold day, if it hadn't started within 60-90 seconds, you'd probably flooded the engine and you were screwed. Call AAA, and wait a couple of hours. I went out to start one of our cars on a -25 below morning recently. Now this car had sat unused for a couple of weeks. That used to mean the kiss of death. I turned the key (No pumping!) and within 5 seconds, the thing was sitting there purring away. Unheard of 20 years ago. Modern cars are more powerful, more reliable, get better mileage and last longer. The only drawback is that when they DO break down, due to the electronics, they can be tougher to fix.
Not everything has been smooth sailing. For a short period of time, voices were being added to things like cars, appliances, and vending machines. People DETESTED them. It wasn't long before car owners were taking their cars in to have the voice silenced. Same for appliances and vending machines. Manufacturers were sitting on warehouses full of these machines with voices, which eventually had to be turned off before they could be sold. Why? It was summed up succinctly by a man who told his Mazda dealer "My kids talk back to me, my workers talk back to me, even my damn dog talks back to me. I don't need my car talking back to me too!!!" As noted before, when things DO break down, they can be harder to fix. I also noted the explosion of remote controls, most of them unused in the long run.
I believe we're on the cusp of another revolution of electronic controls, driven in large part by the newest generation of machines being able to talk with each other wirelessly. The best example of this I can mention is "Blue Tooth." Here's a explanation of Blue Tooth in Wikipedia.
All of this may, or may not be good. Microsquish has a strangle hold on computer operating systems, much to the chagrin and regret of computer nerds, and I'm one of them. The only reason I use Windoze is because the software I want to use requires it. A smart move on Bill Gates' part,(Hereafter refered to as Bubba.) bad for us. Back in the "good ole days" I had Windoze 3.1 installed on my computer, but I never used it. I used DOS instead, as it took up much less resident memory than Windoze. I would always boot the computer on DOS, install the graphics and sound drivers if needed and then just typed in the run commands for the programs I wanted to use. Especially good for games because the available memory wasn't hogged by the OS and the software ran much better. Most savvy users did this. Bubba knew that, so he started convincing the software companies to require Windoze to be running while using their programs. This did several things, all good for the companies and bad for us. It required people like me to either upgrade their computers or buy new ones, and buy the Windoze OS. Good for Bubba but bad for us. He's got the OS market locked up. They've done everything they can to dominate, and dominate they have. There are Apple users out there, but they're a minority, and always will be. I think they like it like that actually. Now, we have the newest generation of Windoze, Vista, being installed in the newest generation of computers. It's getting mixed reviews. It's not being recommended for older computers. The version of XP I bought about a year and a half ago is working fine, and I've no plans on replacing it anytime soon.
Now Bubba wants to extend Microsquish's reach into other things, like the electronic systems of house hold appliances, watches, TV's stereos, well, you get the idea. Bubba and Co. would love it if EVERYTHING used Windoze. Our first MrCoffee coffee maker, a wedding present, was finally replaced in 2002. It had one on/off switch. That was it. That thing made us coffee for 22 years before croaking. Think the new one with digital controls will last that long? I doubt it. But I'm sure as hell not going to toss it out out and buy a new one simply because this has come out. But if Bubba has his way with us, (And so far, he has.) we might be replacing appliances like this simply because Windoze won't support the software any more, forcing new purchases of hard and software. Good for Bubba and Co. but bad for us. (Gee, where have I heard that before???) How good this will be remains to be seen. Bubba isn't the only one out there making this happen. Microsquish has competitors who want a piece of the pie. For now, at least. Remember that Bubba and Co. have shown an amazing talent for flattening his competition. If he manages to do it again, get ready to bend over and grab your ankles. And brace yourself. It won't be much fun.
"People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was invented, didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered engines... There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time, people will come to accept their silicon masters."
Bill Gates
A Good Bye to Louie.
It happened almost a month ago, but it's taken this long for me to be able to write about it and not have tears well up in my eyes.
My Father-in-Law, Louie, passed away in his sleep on Jan 22nd. It was peaceful, with little discomfort. His daughter, my wife, was spending the night in his room so he wouldn't be alone. He'd been ill for some time, having suffered a stroke 4 years ago last Thanksgiving. His beloved wife, Ellen, fell sick with an unusually virulent form of cancer exactly one year later, and she passed away 2 days after Christmas 3 years ago. Louie had been doing fairly well until then, but her passing seemed to take the wind right our of his sails. His health had been slowly declining ever since. We had him out to the farmhouse he'd built for Ellen last New Years Eve. First time in about two years. He didn't talk much, but never napped, as was his usual custom. We had most everyone there, including grandkids, and he just sat there in his wheelchair and took it all in. He was home. I think it was the final thing on his "to-do" list.
If you were to have met him about the same time as I met him, 1976, you'd have thought he was just another simple Minnysoder farmer. And you'd have thought wrong. He was one of the smartest, hardest working men I've ever known.
I always enjoyed the time I spent visiting his farm. It wasn't too far from our home, a manageable drive, and the weekends and summers our sons spent there were invaluable. Not many city kids get to spend time on a fully operational farm these days, as the average american's rural roots become more and more tenuous. I'd spend the day there following him around as he did his various tasks, and you could honestly say that here was a man who truly enjoyed what he was doing. He loved farming, and he was damned good at it. (Lordy, could this man grow good steaks! I didn't realize how spoiled I had gotten until he got out of beef.) He also had an uncanny business sense, a good talent for a farmer. He was on the board of directors of the local bank because of his business acumen.
But the most important thing to me was that he was a good friend and great FIL who treated me as his own son from the very beginning. That meant a lot to me. He had a wry sense of humor and was alway fun to be around. It was a bit tougher to talk with him as he got older. All those years sitting on unmuffled Johnny Poppers and open platform combines took their toll. They didn't use earmuffs way back when, and all that raw noise took its toll. But I still enjoyed spending time with him. I'll miss him dearly.
Good by, Louie. I'll see on the other side. Hope the fields are fertile, and the cattle fat and sassy.
Damn. Here come the tears again.
My Father-in-Law, Louie, passed away in his sleep on Jan 22nd. It was peaceful, with little discomfort. His daughter, my wife, was spending the night in his room so he wouldn't be alone. He'd been ill for some time, having suffered a stroke 4 years ago last Thanksgiving. His beloved wife, Ellen, fell sick with an unusually virulent form of cancer exactly one year later, and she passed away 2 days after Christmas 3 years ago. Louie had been doing fairly well until then, but her passing seemed to take the wind right our of his sails. His health had been slowly declining ever since. We had him out to the farmhouse he'd built for Ellen last New Years Eve. First time in about two years. He didn't talk much, but never napped, as was his usual custom. We had most everyone there, including grandkids, and he just sat there in his wheelchair and took it all in. He was home. I think it was the final thing on his "to-do" list.
If you were to have met him about the same time as I met him, 1976, you'd have thought he was just another simple Minnysoder farmer. And you'd have thought wrong. He was one of the smartest, hardest working men I've ever known.
I always enjoyed the time I spent visiting his farm. It wasn't too far from our home, a manageable drive, and the weekends and summers our sons spent there were invaluable. Not many city kids get to spend time on a fully operational farm these days, as the average american's rural roots become more and more tenuous. I'd spend the day there following him around as he did his various tasks, and you could honestly say that here was a man who truly enjoyed what he was doing. He loved farming, and he was damned good at it. (Lordy, could this man grow good steaks! I didn't realize how spoiled I had gotten until he got out of beef.) He also had an uncanny business sense, a good talent for a farmer. He was on the board of directors of the local bank because of his business acumen.
But the most important thing to me was that he was a good friend and great FIL who treated me as his own son from the very beginning. That meant a lot to me. He had a wry sense of humor and was alway fun to be around. It was a bit tougher to talk with him as he got older. All those years sitting on unmuffled Johnny Poppers and open platform combines took their toll. They didn't use earmuffs way back when, and all that raw noise took its toll. But I still enjoyed spending time with him. I'll miss him dearly.
Good by, Louie. I'll see on the other side. Hope the fields are fertile, and the cattle fat and sassy.
Damn. Here come the tears again.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Reposting a comment
I posted this comment a few weeks ago on a close friend's blog, in response to the issuance of the Iraq Commission's report. I was going through some junk on my computer, and saw my rough draft, and decided that because I don't know how many people read my response, I needed to repost it again. The original post will be in italics, plus an additional observation or two.
Shrub will just do what he's done before when someone says something he doesn't want to hear. He ignores them, or in the case of Generals in the military, force them to retire.
And of course, that's exactly what he did again. He adapted virtually none of the recommendations of the report.
On October 11, 2002, the US Senate voted on the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res 114) Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. I'm proud to say that both Minnesowtah senators, Paul Wellstone, and Mark Dayton voted against it. Two of 23 senators to do so. Both senators endured an incredible storm of criticism both in Washington, and here at home for that vote. They were accused of all sorts of things, including not supporting the troops, ignoring the real threat that Saddam and his "Numerous Weapons Of Mass Destruction" posed to us, even accusations of treason from right wing wackos up here. I remember an interview of him a couple of days later on the subject. He said it was one of the hardest votes he ever made. He was being heavily lobbied from all sides to join with the "yea" vote. But after much thinking and meditation, he said he couldn't live with himself if he went along with the majority and voted for it, because in his heart, he simply didn't believe the bullshit that Shrub's administration was feeding us. He said he believed the information was "cooked" and not true. Once again, another storm of criticism up here from the local right wing Taliban for more "treasonous" statements. Why, how DARE he question our glorious leader???? Some were even calling for a recall election for his "lies and deceit" concerning what he said about Shrub. Funny thing though. He was dead-on-right. He had Shrub's lies and deceit pegged from the beginning. In that interview I spoke of, he said he saw the invasion of Iraq as a bottomless pit we'd never be able to get ourselves out of. He spoke of "thousands of our best young people dying on the battlefield." With the 2002 elections just weeks away, the man put his senate seat on the line rather than go with the flow. And he earned my undying respect. Exactly two weeks later, October 25, Paul Wellstone was dead, due to an airplane accident while flying in to attend the funeral of a close friend here in Northern Minnesowtah. Four years later, you still see green "Wellstone!" and "WWWD?" (What Would Wellstone Do?) bumper stickers on cars up here. For a while, the local Christian Taliban were telling us "He's dead!! Get Over it!!" Don't hear that much any more, as more and more thick headed idiots up here are finally realizing he was right all long. Dead right.
Shrub will just do what he's done before when someone says something he doesn't want to hear. He ignores them, or in the case of Generals in the military, force them to retire.
And of course, that's exactly what he did again. He adapted virtually none of the recommendations of the report.
On October 11, 2002, the US Senate voted on the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res 114) Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. I'm proud to say that both Minnesowtah senators, Paul Wellstone, and Mark Dayton voted against it. Two of 23 senators to do so. Both senators endured an incredible storm of criticism both in Washington, and here at home for that vote. They were accused of all sorts of things, including not supporting the troops, ignoring the real threat that Saddam and his "Numerous Weapons Of Mass Destruction" posed to us, even accusations of treason from right wing wackos up here. I remember an interview of him a couple of days later on the subject. He said it was one of the hardest votes he ever made. He was being heavily lobbied from all sides to join with the "yea" vote. But after much thinking and meditation, he said he couldn't live with himself if he went along with the majority and voted for it, because in his heart, he simply didn't believe the bullshit that Shrub's administration was feeding us. He said he believed the information was "cooked" and not true. Once again, another storm of criticism up here from the local right wing Taliban for more "treasonous" statements. Why, how DARE he question our glorious leader???? Some were even calling for a recall election for his "lies and deceit" concerning what he said about Shrub. Funny thing though. He was dead-on-right. He had Shrub's lies and deceit pegged from the beginning. In that interview I spoke of, he said he saw the invasion of Iraq as a bottomless pit we'd never be able to get ourselves out of. He spoke of "thousands of our best young people dying on the battlefield." With the 2002 elections just weeks away, the man put his senate seat on the line rather than go with the flow. And he earned my undying respect. Exactly two weeks later, October 25, Paul Wellstone was dead, due to an airplane accident while flying in to attend the funeral of a close friend here in Northern Minnesowtah. Four years later, you still see green "Wellstone!" and "WWWD?" (What Would Wellstone Do?) bumper stickers on cars up here. For a while, the local Christian Taliban were telling us "He's dead!! Get Over it!!" Don't hear that much any more, as more and more thick headed idiots up here are finally realizing he was right all long. Dead right.
