Seems that Senator Harry Reid from South Carolina was right after all when he called NObama a "liar" during an Obama speech on health care a few months ago. NObama himself proved this just last week, in case you missed it.
See, it's like this: during his campaign, Obama declared flat-out that if he were elected President, he absolutely would not sign any legislsation that contained "pork." After eight years of a President who could be considered the King of Pork, this was just what the people wanted to hear. And just last August in a speech given to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona, the President - Obama, not Bush - said, and I quote: "If a project doesn't support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system doesn't perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of pork, I will veto it. "
Well, last week Congress sent him a defense bill that contained no less than 1,720 pet projects that had been tacked on by Congressmen to either create jobs in their districts and win votes, or to garner their support for the bill and win votes in the process. Some of these "pet projects" include:
$5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
∙$23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
∙$18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Massachusetts
∙$1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
∙$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
∙$20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
∙$3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
∙$800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
∙$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
∙$2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York
And what did The Great Pretender do? Did he remember his campaign promises of a year ago? Nooooooo, of course not. Did he remember his vow to the VFW of only four months ago? Nooooooooo, of course not. What did he do?
He signed the bill, of course!
Now, would somebody please tell me what a handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York have to do with maintaining our military and keeping our country safe? Not a damned thing, that's what!
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called PORK, and our President has just crowned himself the King of Pork with a stroke of his pen. He has proven to us all that he is absolutely no different than any other politician who has ever held office, especially the Office of the President of the United States. He lied to us during his campaign, and he lied to us from his position as President. He has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in any reasonable person's mind that he is nothing more than a typical politician, no different from any other.
Except in one way, of course. He's black.
But then, that's what got him elected in the first place, isn't it?
Seems to me that the only "change" we can "hope" for is the one that's gonna happen on January 20, 2013. But I shudder to think of just how much damage this idiot is gonna do between now and then. The only saving grace is that midway through his term, Congress comes up for re-election and maybe then Pelosi and her band of merry idiots will get shown the door and the Republicans will take over again which, after four years of Demoncratic control and two years of a black Alfred E. Neuman in the White House, won't be such a bad thing after all.
Until then, all we can do is hang on.
And HOPE it doesn't get too much worse.
IHC
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Southern History 101 - The Emancipation Proclamation
In all of American history, second only to the Declaration of Independence there has been no more famous, no more important, and no more history-making document than the Emancipation Proclamation.
And there has been no more illegal, meaningless and misrepresented document in American history than the Emancipation Proclamation, second to none.
What? The famous Emancipation Proclamation is illegal? Meaningless and misrepresented? How can that be? Actually it’s very simple, and you won’t read it in the history books being used in our schools these days, that’s for sure. For to reveal the truth behind this document would be to show what a scheming and self-centered politician Abraham Lincoln really was, and it might just legitimize the Southern cause along the way.
Let’s take a look, shall we?
The Emancipation Proclamation is an illegal document.
This one is fairly simple. The EP is an illegal document because the president issuing it did not have legal authority over the area of the country which was addressed in the document itself. The wording of the EP states that the Proclamation affects “those states currently in rebellion against the government of the United States” or something very close to that effect. From the Yankee point of view, that view being that secession was unconstitutional and that the Southern states were still a part of the United States, the EP is legal and binding. (But if that’s the case, then why did the Southern states have to apply for re-admittance to the Union under the Johnson administration? Oh, wait, that’s for another blog!) But from the Southern point of view, the Confederate States had seceded from the United States and were now a separate, sovereign nation, and Lincoln had no legal authority over them. I guess this all hinges on whether or not secession is unconstitutional, but that point is still being argued no matter what the Supreme Court said in 1870 or thereabouts. Personally, I think secession IS constitutional, Lincoln had no authority over the Southern states, and therefore the Emancipation Proclamation is an illegal document.
The Emancipation Proclamation is a meaningless document.
This one is a no-brainer: if the EP is illegal, it is therefore meaningless. But on the larger scale, it’s a meaningless document because it only addresses slavery in the Southern states; it made no mention at all of slavery in the Northern states. While not being practiced due to the lack of need for slaves in the industrialized North, slavery was still legal in nearly all of the Northern states. Lincoln chose not to include the ENTIRE United States in his proclamation, limiting it instead to only “those states currently in rebellion.” If you’re gonna put out a document such as this, why not include the entire nation in its scope? Well, simple – this is what you do if you’re losing public support for your war effort and need something to kick-start it and gain back the support of the people. You need something that no Christian soul could possibly find fault with, something that would unite all of the Northern people behind you and your war effort. Slavery was the logical choice, and it worked like a charm.
The Emancipation Proclamation is a misrepresented document.
The Emancipation Proclamation is forever being loudly heralded by the lemming-like followers of “The Great Emancipator” as the document which put an end to slavery in the United States. As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not the case. Additionally, all you have to do is read the list of amendments to the United States Constitution and you’ll find that slavery wasn’t abolished in the United States until December 6, 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. And even that is questionable, since IMHO the ratification of the 13th Amendment was illegal in and of itself. Without getting off on another tangent, it’s like this: amendments to the Constitution can only be voted on by representatives of “member states” of the Union. The stand of the Johnston administration and the majority of the Northern populace was that the Southern states would have to be “readmitted” to the Union, and therefore were not “member states” any longer. As a part of the “readmittance” program and Reconstruction, in order to be readmitted to the Union each former Confederate state would have to vote for and accept the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Since at the time of the ratification the former Confederate states were not, by admission of the Federal government, members of the United States, they were not eligible to vote on any amendment. But they did anyway, the Johnston administration accepted it, and the Federal government effectively ignored the US Constitution and allowed an illegal amendment to become law.
In the annals of federal travesties of justice, I rank this one right up there along with Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in 1862.
Of course, "historians" have ignored this little gem and have continued to proclaim the Emancipation Proclamation as THE document that abolished slavery, and have long touted Abraham Lincoln as "The Great Emancipator." All of which is historically inaccurate, of course. But then again, as Josef Goebbles, the propaganda minister for Nazi Germany, said, "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
So there you have it, dear readers, the truth behind the Emancipation Proclamation in all its ugly glory. Go find that in your history books, I dare ya.
Class dismissed!
IHC
And there has been no more illegal, meaningless and misrepresented document in American history than the Emancipation Proclamation, second to none.
What? The famous Emancipation Proclamation is illegal? Meaningless and misrepresented? How can that be? Actually it’s very simple, and you won’t read it in the history books being used in our schools these days, that’s for sure. For to reveal the truth behind this document would be to show what a scheming and self-centered politician Abraham Lincoln really was, and it might just legitimize the Southern cause along the way.
Let’s take a look, shall we?
The Emancipation Proclamation is an illegal document.
This one is fairly simple. The EP is an illegal document because the president issuing it did not have legal authority over the area of the country which was addressed in the document itself. The wording of the EP states that the Proclamation affects “those states currently in rebellion against the government of the United States” or something very close to that effect. From the Yankee point of view, that view being that secession was unconstitutional and that the Southern states were still a part of the United States, the EP is legal and binding. (But if that’s the case, then why did the Southern states have to apply for re-admittance to the Union under the Johnson administration? Oh, wait, that’s for another blog!) But from the Southern point of view, the Confederate States had seceded from the United States and were now a separate, sovereign nation, and Lincoln had no legal authority over them. I guess this all hinges on whether or not secession is unconstitutional, but that point is still being argued no matter what the Supreme Court said in 1870 or thereabouts. Personally, I think secession IS constitutional, Lincoln had no authority over the Southern states, and therefore the Emancipation Proclamation is an illegal document.
The Emancipation Proclamation is a meaningless document.
This one is a no-brainer: if the EP is illegal, it is therefore meaningless. But on the larger scale, it’s a meaningless document because it only addresses slavery in the Southern states; it made no mention at all of slavery in the Northern states. While not being practiced due to the lack of need for slaves in the industrialized North, slavery was still legal in nearly all of the Northern states. Lincoln chose not to include the ENTIRE United States in his proclamation, limiting it instead to only “those states currently in rebellion.” If you’re gonna put out a document such as this, why not include the entire nation in its scope? Well, simple – this is what you do if you’re losing public support for your war effort and need something to kick-start it and gain back the support of the people. You need something that no Christian soul could possibly find fault with, something that would unite all of the Northern people behind you and your war effort. Slavery was the logical choice, and it worked like a charm.
The Emancipation Proclamation is a misrepresented document.
The Emancipation Proclamation is forever being loudly heralded by the lemming-like followers of “The Great Emancipator” as the document which put an end to slavery in the United States. As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not the case. Additionally, all you have to do is read the list of amendments to the United States Constitution and you’ll find that slavery wasn’t abolished in the United States until December 6, 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. And even that is questionable, since IMHO the ratification of the 13th Amendment was illegal in and of itself. Without getting off on another tangent, it’s like this: amendments to the Constitution can only be voted on by representatives of “member states” of the Union. The stand of the Johnston administration and the majority of the Northern populace was that the Southern states would have to be “readmitted” to the Union, and therefore were not “member states” any longer. As a part of the “readmittance” program and Reconstruction, in order to be readmitted to the Union each former Confederate state would have to vote for and accept the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Since at the time of the ratification the former Confederate states were not, by admission of the Federal government, members of the United States, they were not eligible to vote on any amendment. But they did anyway, the Johnston administration accepted it, and the Federal government effectively ignored the US Constitution and allowed an illegal amendment to become law.
In the annals of federal travesties of justice, I rank this one right up there along with Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in 1862.
Of course, "historians" have ignored this little gem and have continued to proclaim the Emancipation Proclamation as THE document that abolished slavery, and have long touted Abraham Lincoln as "The Great Emancipator." All of which is historically inaccurate, of course. But then again, as Josef Goebbles, the propaganda minister for Nazi Germany, said, "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
So there you have it, dear readers, the truth behind the Emancipation Proclamation in all its ugly glory. Go find that in your history books, I dare ya.
Class dismissed!
IHC
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Southern History 101 - What's In a Name?
One of the simplest and most hotly debated topics among followers and students of Southern history is the name by which the time period of 1861-1865 is called. Hard to believe that something so simple could cause so much discontent and hurt feelings, but it’s true. I’ve been a witness to forum exchanges in which the participants got downright nasty and insulting, all over which name for the conflict was “right” and which was “wrong.” And invariably, the main two participants would be from each side of the Mason/Dixon Line with supporters of each lining up behind them. I always tried to stay out of such petty arguments, because for the most part they were counter-productive at best and totally unproductive at worst. Nothing was ever accomplished that I know of, yet the argument still rages on in forums across the land to this day.
So why not address the topic and my opinions here? Hell, why not? It’s my blog; I can do whatever I want, right?
Having said that, and for what it’s worth, here’s my two cents worth on what name I consider “correct” when referring to the last war fought on American soil. There’s no way I can possibly cover all of the various names being used, so I’ll concern myself with the most popular and leave it at that.
The most common name, the name first used by Abraham Lincoln in his much-vaunted Gettysburg Address, is “Civil War.” Over the course of time this has become the “accepted” and “universal” name used; why, I don’t know. IMHO it’s just as incorrect now as it was then, so why it’s the name everyone settled on is….well, I know why, and I’ll talk about that in a later blog. But the reason I don’t consider this name accurate is simple: a “civil war” takes place when the civilian population of a nation takes up arms and rises up in revolt against the controlling government with the intent of overthrowing that government and installing their own. The Southern states and the Southern people did neither of these. They did exactly the same thing that the Founding Fathers did in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence – they announced their separation from the ruling government with the intent of establishing their own nation and their own government.
Only the Southern people went one step further – they actually established the government, complete with president, congress, armed forces and constitution – before the shooting started. The United States didn’t accomplish that until 1787 with the ratification of the US Constitution. So when the shooting started in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, what took place was the beginning of a war between two separate nations with two established governments, each with established armed forces – as established as state militia under national control can be – with the Confederate States of America having the express goal not to overthrow the United States government and take over, but to break away from the United States and be a separate nation. And had Lincoln not maneuvered the Confederate States into firing the first shot, this very may well have happened. But in any event, that’s why I don’t think the term “civil war” is accurate.
The next most popular term is “War Between the States.” I used to use this term until I read something about why the term isn’t accurate, and found myself in agreement with it. The reason is simple: this term implies a war between independent states, with no federal or national government or forces being involved. As I have shown in the preceding paragraph, this is not the case. Hence I don’t feel that name is accurate, either.
Some really die-hard pro-modern day secession Southerners will use the term, “War of Northern Aggression,” and to a point – a very small one – they’re right. With the exception of the spring of 1862 when Lee invaded Maryland and again in the summer of 1863 when Lee invaded Pennsylvania, the war was a defensive one for the Confederacy, being fought almost completely in the South and against invading Northern armies. I suppose you could even go a bit further back in history to the many causes of the war and use them to justify this term, but personally I don’t buy it for one simple reason: the Confederacy fired the first shot. And he who fires first is, by definition, the aggressor. So I don’t think this term fits, either.
So what name “fits,” what name do I use when talking about this time period in our history? Well, it’s like this…I use the name which I feel most correctly sums up the war, its reason for being fought, and its goal from the Confederate point of view. Of course, the Yankees will disagree, but that’s to be expected. In any event, I call it:
“THE WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE.”
Simple, effective, and most of all, accurate…from the Southern point of view, anyway. If the Yankees disagree, which I’m sure they will, then that’s just too bad.
They’ll get over it.
IHC
So why not address the topic and my opinions here? Hell, why not? It’s my blog; I can do whatever I want, right?
Having said that, and for what it’s worth, here’s my two cents worth on what name I consider “correct” when referring to the last war fought on American soil. There’s no way I can possibly cover all of the various names being used, so I’ll concern myself with the most popular and leave it at that.
The most common name, the name first used by Abraham Lincoln in his much-vaunted Gettysburg Address, is “Civil War.” Over the course of time this has become the “accepted” and “universal” name used; why, I don’t know. IMHO it’s just as incorrect now as it was then, so why it’s the name everyone settled on is….well, I know why, and I’ll talk about that in a later blog. But the reason I don’t consider this name accurate is simple: a “civil war” takes place when the civilian population of a nation takes up arms and rises up in revolt against the controlling government with the intent of overthrowing that government and installing their own. The Southern states and the Southern people did neither of these. They did exactly the same thing that the Founding Fathers did in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence – they announced their separation from the ruling government with the intent of establishing their own nation and their own government.
Only the Southern people went one step further – they actually established the government, complete with president, congress, armed forces and constitution – before the shooting started. The United States didn’t accomplish that until 1787 with the ratification of the US Constitution. So when the shooting started in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, what took place was the beginning of a war between two separate nations with two established governments, each with established armed forces – as established as state militia under national control can be – with the Confederate States of America having the express goal not to overthrow the United States government and take over, but to break away from the United States and be a separate nation. And had Lincoln not maneuvered the Confederate States into firing the first shot, this very may well have happened. But in any event, that’s why I don’t think the term “civil war” is accurate.
The next most popular term is “War Between the States.” I used to use this term until I read something about why the term isn’t accurate, and found myself in agreement with it. The reason is simple: this term implies a war between independent states, with no federal or national government or forces being involved. As I have shown in the preceding paragraph, this is not the case. Hence I don’t feel that name is accurate, either.
Some really die-hard pro-modern day secession Southerners will use the term, “War of Northern Aggression,” and to a point – a very small one – they’re right. With the exception of the spring of 1862 when Lee invaded Maryland and again in the summer of 1863 when Lee invaded Pennsylvania, the war was a defensive one for the Confederacy, being fought almost completely in the South and against invading Northern armies. I suppose you could even go a bit further back in history to the many causes of the war and use them to justify this term, but personally I don’t buy it for one simple reason: the Confederacy fired the first shot. And he who fires first is, by definition, the aggressor. So I don’t think this term fits, either.
So what name “fits,” what name do I use when talking about this time period in our history? Well, it’s like this…I use the name which I feel most correctly sums up the war, its reason for being fought, and its goal from the Confederate point of view. Of course, the Yankees will disagree, but that’s to be expected. In any event, I call it:
“THE WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE.”
Simple, effective, and most of all, accurate…from the Southern point of view, anyway. If the Yankees disagree, which I’m sure they will, then that’s just too bad.
They’ll get over it.
IHC
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Shine Begins to Fade
Just heard on the news that for the first time since taking office, NObama's approval rating has dropped below 50%. And on FOX NEWS a few days ago right after The Great Pretender got on TV and told an interviewer that he would rate his performance so far as a B+, I took a survey and saw that the overall results of everyone else who took it rated him the same as I did - a D-. Not something to be proud of, to be sure.
And honestly, I'm not at all surprised. I, like the millions of others who didn't vote for him because we saw him for the faker and the charlatan that he truly is, knew this day was coming.
For all of you out there who may be reading this and who voted for him, this might be a good time to go read something else, because it's gonna get ugly from here on out.
You're still here? Ok, then, you've been warned.
So after nearly a year in office, the only thing that NObama has proven is that he gives a great speech. Big deal. Hitler gave great speeches, too. He's proven himself to be a first-rate snake oil salesman, because he sure sold the American public a bill of goods. He burst onto the scene with this catchy little slogan of "Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In," got himself elected based on the color of his skin and not the experience level he would bring to the office, and immediately began to embarass himself, the office of the President, and the United States. He has bowed like a good little servant boy to every foreign leader he's ever met, something that no US president has ever done before - and with good reason. The US doesn't bow down to ANYBODY, in case you weren't paying attention.
He gave another great speech about how his much-lauded "stimulus package" would jump-start the economy and help lower the unemployment rate, and his Demoncratic cronies in Congress used their majority to ram the bill through and get it signed into law. And just what has this "stimulus package" accomplished? Nothing. Not a damned thing. And when people started to complain about the jobless rate still going up and the economy not recovering as The Great Pretender promised, he popped up and said that it would take "about a year or so" before we saw any real change.
There's that word again. Slogans and excuses instead of results.
Then there's the bailouts...more taxpayer's money - YOUR money, by the way, and mine - thrown down the toilet and flushed away. Big business benefits from his ideals of "hope" and "change," but as for you and me, well, we seem to be left out in the cold, huh? And then the word about the exhorbitant bonuses being given out by the companies who got the NObama bailout money, and what does the President do about it?
Nothing. Not a damned thing.
But he will get on TV and give another good speech. He's really good at that.
Then there's his big idea about health care reform and how "socialized medicine" is going to be a good thing for all of us. Yeah, I know he's never called it that, but when the government takes over health care and pays for a part of it, that's called "socialized medicine." It doesn't work in Canada, so why the hell should it work here? But in the mean time, he and his Demoncratic cronies in Congress who were always the first and the loudest to complain about "partisan politics" when the Congress was controlled by the Republicans are now complaining that the Republicans won't roll over for what is recognized to be a disaster in the making if this health plan passes. NObama and the Demoncrats are now saying that they expect "cooperation" in getting the bill passed, and the President has even hinted at strongarm tactics to get the bad boy Republicans to see it his way.
Of course, the Republicans aren't going to back down, and good for them. They shouldn't. This health care plan is going to result in more taxes, more debt, more governmental control over our lives, and is going to be the ruination of the economy. The Republicans know this and are fighting it, and I'm behind them on this all the way.
And back at the White House, NObama has surrounded himself with what he thinks are "qualified" people to attend to his home and office. Yeah, well, his security staff sure has screwed the pooch in the last couple of month, haven't they? First we hear about this "high society" Virginia couple who crashes a dinner party and are even photographed shaking his hand, and now we hear that a few months before that a couple of tourists who arrived at the White House a full day early for their tour got invited to an "invitation only" breakfast with NObama.
Two breaches of White House security in two months. Way to go, guys. Great security ya got there.
And at the height of public discontent and satisfaction at the job our first black president is doing, what does The Great Pretender do? He trots off to Europe to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize - you know, the one he was nominated for after a mere twelve days in office. To be honest, this isn't his fault since he had no input or knowledge that it was going on, but I gotta say that he did have the option of turning it down. But of course he didn't. He's now right up there with his hero, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., so why the hell would he not accept the "do-nothing" prize? And I guess the million bucks that goes along with it didn't hurt none, either.
So now the first year of NObama's term in office is nearly done, and after all is said and done it has been a disappointing year at best, a disastrous one at worst. But it's one year less that he has in office, and that's a good thing. Let's just hope that it doesn't get much worse from here.
But I ain't holding my breath on that one.
So for all you Obamabots out there who bought into his big talk and empty promises and elected him into an office for which he was supremely unqualified to hold, lemme ask ya something....
HOW'S THAT "HOPEY-CHANGEY" THING WORKIN' OUT FOR YA?
IHC
And honestly, I'm not at all surprised. I, like the millions of others who didn't vote for him because we saw him for the faker and the charlatan that he truly is, knew this day was coming.
For all of you out there who may be reading this and who voted for him, this might be a good time to go read something else, because it's gonna get ugly from here on out.
You're still here? Ok, then, you've been warned.
So after nearly a year in office, the only thing that NObama has proven is that he gives a great speech. Big deal. Hitler gave great speeches, too. He's proven himself to be a first-rate snake oil salesman, because he sure sold the American public a bill of goods. He burst onto the scene with this catchy little slogan of "Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In," got himself elected based on the color of his skin and not the experience level he would bring to the office, and immediately began to embarass himself, the office of the President, and the United States. He has bowed like a good little servant boy to every foreign leader he's ever met, something that no US president has ever done before - and with good reason. The US doesn't bow down to ANYBODY, in case you weren't paying attention.
He gave another great speech about how his much-lauded "stimulus package" would jump-start the economy and help lower the unemployment rate, and his Demoncratic cronies in Congress used their majority to ram the bill through and get it signed into law. And just what has this "stimulus package" accomplished? Nothing. Not a damned thing. And when people started to complain about the jobless rate still going up and the economy not recovering as The Great Pretender promised, he popped up and said that it would take "about a year or so" before we saw any real change.
There's that word again. Slogans and excuses instead of results.
Then there's the bailouts...more taxpayer's money - YOUR money, by the way, and mine - thrown down the toilet and flushed away. Big business benefits from his ideals of "hope" and "change," but as for you and me, well, we seem to be left out in the cold, huh? And then the word about the exhorbitant bonuses being given out by the companies who got the NObama bailout money, and what does the President do about it?
Nothing. Not a damned thing.
But he will get on TV and give another good speech. He's really good at that.
Then there's his big idea about health care reform and how "socialized medicine" is going to be a good thing for all of us. Yeah, I know he's never called it that, but when the government takes over health care and pays for a part of it, that's called "socialized medicine." It doesn't work in Canada, so why the hell should it work here? But in the mean time, he and his Demoncratic cronies in Congress who were always the first and the loudest to complain about "partisan politics" when the Congress was controlled by the Republicans are now complaining that the Republicans won't roll over for what is recognized to be a disaster in the making if this health plan passes. NObama and the Demoncrats are now saying that they expect "cooperation" in getting the bill passed, and the President has even hinted at strongarm tactics to get the bad boy Republicans to see it his way.
Of course, the Republicans aren't going to back down, and good for them. They shouldn't. This health care plan is going to result in more taxes, more debt, more governmental control over our lives, and is going to be the ruination of the economy. The Republicans know this and are fighting it, and I'm behind them on this all the way.
And back at the White House, NObama has surrounded himself with what he thinks are "qualified" people to attend to his home and office. Yeah, well, his security staff sure has screwed the pooch in the last couple of month, haven't they? First we hear about this "high society" Virginia couple who crashes a dinner party and are even photographed shaking his hand, and now we hear that a few months before that a couple of tourists who arrived at the White House a full day early for their tour got invited to an "invitation only" breakfast with NObama.
Two breaches of White House security in two months. Way to go, guys. Great security ya got there.
And at the height of public discontent and satisfaction at the job our first black president is doing, what does The Great Pretender do? He trots off to Europe to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize - you know, the one he was nominated for after a mere twelve days in office. To be honest, this isn't his fault since he had no input or knowledge that it was going on, but I gotta say that he did have the option of turning it down. But of course he didn't. He's now right up there with his hero, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., so why the hell would he not accept the "do-nothing" prize? And I guess the million bucks that goes along with it didn't hurt none, either.
So now the first year of NObama's term in office is nearly done, and after all is said and done it has been a disappointing year at best, a disastrous one at worst. But it's one year less that he has in office, and that's a good thing. Let's just hope that it doesn't get much worse from here.
But I ain't holding my breath on that one.
So for all you Obamabots out there who bought into his big talk and empty promises and elected him into an office for which he was supremely unqualified to hold, lemme ask ya something....
HOW'S THAT "HOPEY-CHANGEY" THING WORKIN' OUT FOR YA?
IHC
Sunday, December 13, 2009
"NYPD TRACKS GUN IN TIMES SQUARE SHOOTING" - Once Again, the Media Misses the Point Entirely
For those of you who didn't hear about it, there was a shooting a few days ago in Times Square in The Great Stinkhole, also known as New York City, involving several plain clothes undercover cops with the NYPD and a street hustler/wannabe rap star named Richard Martinez. Martinez was selling his home-made rap CDs to tourists and other suckers in Times Square when the undercover cops ID'd themselves and asked him for his tax stamp - something you have to have when hawking your goods on the street. (You don't need a license since you're selling home-made stuff, but you do need a tax stamp.) Martinez didn't have one, an argument ensued, and then he pulled out a MAC-10 machine pistol and started shooting. The cops, of course, shot back, and when the gunsmoke had cleared the punk wannabe rap star was lying on the ground, dead. He got off 3 shots before his gun jammed.
And yesterday we're greeted with the banner headline of, "NYPD TRACKS GUN IN TIMES SQUARE SHOOTING!"
Big deal. Not like they solved the Lindbergh Kidnapping or something like that. After all, it wasn't that hard to do. Turns out that all they had to do was run the serial number of the weapon, which showed it was LEGALLY PURCHASED in a gun store in Powhatan County, Virginia in early October, and that the person who bought it also later reported it stolen from her car on October 28. They even named the person who bought it in the news article. (Me, I'd have sued the living crap outta someone for releasing my name, but that's just me.) So now the NYPD is investigating just how the street punk came into possession of the firearm, which is the next logical thing to do.
Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is using this opportunity to spew his message of gun control, citing the fact that "once again" a weapon used in a shooting on the streets of New York City was purchased in that evil empire, Virginia, and how guns are bad and we need to get rid of them to solve all of society's ills.
In my humble opinion, Mayor Mike Bloomberg is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
Never mind the obvious facts of the story that have nothing to do with where the gun was purchased.
Never mind the fact that Martinez was recording and publishing rap songs about "staring down the cops" and had bragged that he wasn't afraid of them and had even hinted at not being afraid to take a shot at one - a brag which he fulfilled as his last mortal act.
Never mind the fact that the weapon was purchased legally, and was, in fact, an "illegal handgun" at the time of the crime because it had been STOLEN from the lawful owner and THEN used in a crime.
Never mind the fact that the gun store owner followed all federal regulations regarding gun sales, which allowed the NYPD to track the gun so quickly in the first place.
Never mind that the required federal background check was conducted before the sale, and the gun was sold LEGALLY after the check came back clear.
Never mind the fact that Martinez was in the act of committing a crime - a small one, to be sure, but a crime no less - when he started the gunfight with the cops. Not a smart thing to do, but then again, this punk hasn't shown himself to be all that bright to begin with.
No, let's not pay any attention to all of the more important facts about the incident - let's play "Bloomberg Hates Guns" and focus on the fact that the gun was purchased in Virginia and found its way to NYC via the criminal elements in that city. Let's not pay any attention to how the gun came into the punk's hands, or who facilitated it getting there. And finally, let's not pay any attention at all to the fact that the punk illegally purchased a stolen firearm, was illegally in possession of it, was carrying it concealed illegally, was committing an illegal act when he used it, and used it to try and kill two cops.
No, let's not pay any attention to that at all.
IHC
And yesterday we're greeted with the banner headline of, "NYPD TRACKS GUN IN TIMES SQUARE SHOOTING!"
Big deal. Not like they solved the Lindbergh Kidnapping or something like that. After all, it wasn't that hard to do. Turns out that all they had to do was run the serial number of the weapon, which showed it was LEGALLY PURCHASED in a gun store in Powhatan County, Virginia in early October, and that the person who bought it also later reported it stolen from her car on October 28. They even named the person who bought it in the news article. (Me, I'd have sued the living crap outta someone for releasing my name, but that's just me.) So now the NYPD is investigating just how the street punk came into possession of the firearm, which is the next logical thing to do.
Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is using this opportunity to spew his message of gun control, citing the fact that "once again" a weapon used in a shooting on the streets of New York City was purchased in that evil empire, Virginia, and how guns are bad and we need to get rid of them to solve all of society's ills.
In my humble opinion, Mayor Mike Bloomberg is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
Never mind the obvious facts of the story that have nothing to do with where the gun was purchased.
Never mind the fact that Martinez was recording and publishing rap songs about "staring down the cops" and had bragged that he wasn't afraid of them and had even hinted at not being afraid to take a shot at one - a brag which he fulfilled as his last mortal act.
Never mind the fact that the weapon was purchased legally, and was, in fact, an "illegal handgun" at the time of the crime because it had been STOLEN from the lawful owner and THEN used in a crime.
Never mind the fact that the gun store owner followed all federal regulations regarding gun sales, which allowed the NYPD to track the gun so quickly in the first place.
Never mind that the required federal background check was conducted before the sale, and the gun was sold LEGALLY after the check came back clear.
Never mind the fact that Martinez was in the act of committing a crime - a small one, to be sure, but a crime no less - when he started the gunfight with the cops. Not a smart thing to do, but then again, this punk hasn't shown himself to be all that bright to begin with.
No, let's not pay any attention to all of the more important facts about the incident - let's play "Bloomberg Hates Guns" and focus on the fact that the gun was purchased in Virginia and found its way to NYC via the criminal elements in that city. Let's not pay any attention to how the gun came into the punk's hands, or who facilitated it getting there. And finally, let's not pay any attention at all to the fact that the punk illegally purchased a stolen firearm, was illegally in possession of it, was carrying it concealed illegally, was committing an illegal act when he used it, and used it to try and kill two cops.
No, let's not pay any attention to that at all.
IHC
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Homeowner's Associations - Why I Hate Them
So have you been following the story from Henrico County, Virginia (the county that Highland Springs is located in, by the way) about a homeowner's association that has been harrassing the living crap out of one of the homeowners about the 20 foot flagpole he put up in his front yard so he could fly his American flag every day? Seems that the erecting of the pole in the front yard was deemed by the Sussex Square Homeowner's Association not to be "asthetically pleasing" to the neighborhood, so the association denied the homeowner's request to erect the pole. They said if he wanted to fly an American flag in his front yard, then he'd have to do it like everyone else in the neighborhood was - from a smaller pole mounted on the railing of his porch or the side of his house.
The homeowner did what I would have done - he erected the freestanding 20 foot pole anyway. And at that point the association started with the harrassment, demanding that the homeowner remove the flag or face legal action to include fines and a lien on his property to ensure he paid the fines.
The homeowner told them to go pound sand. Good for him!
The homeowner, by the way, is a ninety year old veteran of three wars, those being WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. He is Retired US Army Colonel Van T. Barfoot, and is a Medal of Honor recipient from WWII. But the Sussex Square Homeowner's Association didn't give a crap about all that - they demanded that Colonel Barfoot remove the flag, period.
After nearly a week of a firestorm after the story hit the national wire, the homeowner's association has given up and told the colonel that he can keep his flagpole right where it is, and they won't bother him anymore. Seems they were literally flooded with e-mail, snail mail, and phone calls supporting the colonel and his flagpole, and they finally saw the error of their ways.
Man, do I hate homeowner's associations! And this is a very good reason why!
Yeah, I know the reason for homeowner's associations - they keep the neighborhood from looking like crap by enforcing rules like no junk cars in the front yard, things like that. And I fully understand the logic behind it and to a very small point support it. But I have yet to hear of ANY homeowner's association that did not fall prey to the part of the Peter Principle which states, "Absolute power corrupts - absolutely."
It's like this: the day YOU start paying taxes on my property and start paying my mortgage for me, THAT is is the day you can tell me what I can and can't do with my house. Simple as that.
The neighborhood I live in now has a homeowner's association, and to be honest if I had known that prior to the day we went to close on the house, I absolutely would NOT have purchased my current house. I found out about the association literaly at closing, when the attorney was ticking off the fees. He mentioned homeowner's association dues, and when I said, "Hey, wait a minute! HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION DUES?" It was at that point that I found out that there was an association in my development. Of course I had no choice but to continue on - I had already transferred in my job and had sold the house in New Jersey, and all of our stuff was on the truck on the way to the new house by then. So we closed on the house and became unwilling members of the association.
I absolutely despise my homeowner's association, because they have some of the stupidest rules that I have ever heard of in my entire life.
As it is right now, the board of the association is made up of the developers of my subdivision; the bylaws state that when the subdivision is "100% complete" - meaning that all of the lots are sold and all of the available houses are up - the control of the association would be turned over to the homeowners. Until then the association is controlled by the developer and their lawyers. Sounds reasonable, right?
Except for this little jewel: All new construction in my development came to a screeching halt when the housing market collapsed two years ago! There has been ZERO new construction since then, and I don't forsee the development being "100% complete" anytime in the near future. I guess the board saw it, too, because last December when they sent us our statement for dues, they said they were taking names of homeowners who were interested in serving on the board because they were going to turn the board and the association over to the homeowners since construction had stopped. Of course I put my name in!
Well, that was December 2008, and I got the exact same letter again this year. I personally know of four people in my neighborhood in addition to me that volunteered for the board, so there's no good reason why it hasn't been turned over to us yet.
So in the mean time, we're all living by rules set by a real estate development company that was trying to get all of the property sold as quickly as possible, meaning that the neighborhood needed to be a "showcase" for all of the prospective buyers driving around looking at things. And some of those rules are absolutely stupid, let me tell you! Here's the most stupid of the bunch:
You can't leave your garage door open, period. You must open it, get what you need out of the garage, and close it immediately. Failure to follow this rule will result in a warning for the first offense and then a fine.
You can't park any vehicles on the street, period. If your driveway is full, then that's just too bad. Failure to follow this rule will result in a warning and then a fine.
You can't park cars in your yard, period. (I agree with this one, but readily admit that if you could park on the street you wouldn't need to park in your yard!) Failure to follow this rule...well, you get the idea.
You can't have chain-link fences, period.
Any fences must be plank wood and must be "scalloped" in design. They must also come up along the side of your house far enough to cover your AC unit. (NO, mine doesn't. Screw 'em.)
You can't erect metal sheds, period. Any sheds erected must be covered in aluminum siding and must match the design of your house; i.e., if your house is light grey with a dark green roof, then your shed must be light grey with a dark green roof.
And I saved my all-time favorite for last, and you ain't gonna believe this one! (I have the bylaws on file to back this up, too!)
Ready? Here it is: The association board members have the right to ENTER MY HOUSE and evaluate the style of INTERIOR LIGHTING installed, and order me to remove it if they don't like it!
All I can say is this: ANYONE who enters MY house without either my permission or a search warrant is leaving in a body bag!
The wife and I have discussed where we'll end up in the future, and we're both agreed that this won't be the last house we ever buy. We're also both in agreement that the next house we buy will NOT be someplace where there's a homeowner's association!
In the mean time, I'm still waiting for the association to turn the board over to us...I'll keep you posted.
IHC
The homeowner did what I would have done - he erected the freestanding 20 foot pole anyway. And at that point the association started with the harrassment, demanding that the homeowner remove the flag or face legal action to include fines and a lien on his property to ensure he paid the fines.
The homeowner told them to go pound sand. Good for him!
The homeowner, by the way, is a ninety year old veteran of three wars, those being WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. He is Retired US Army Colonel Van T. Barfoot, and is a Medal of Honor recipient from WWII. But the Sussex Square Homeowner's Association didn't give a crap about all that - they demanded that Colonel Barfoot remove the flag, period.
After nearly a week of a firestorm after the story hit the national wire, the homeowner's association has given up and told the colonel that he can keep his flagpole right where it is, and they won't bother him anymore. Seems they were literally flooded with e-mail, snail mail, and phone calls supporting the colonel and his flagpole, and they finally saw the error of their ways.
Man, do I hate homeowner's associations! And this is a very good reason why!
Yeah, I know the reason for homeowner's associations - they keep the neighborhood from looking like crap by enforcing rules like no junk cars in the front yard, things like that. And I fully understand the logic behind it and to a very small point support it. But I have yet to hear of ANY homeowner's association that did not fall prey to the part of the Peter Principle which states, "Absolute power corrupts - absolutely."
It's like this: the day YOU start paying taxes on my property and start paying my mortgage for me, THAT is is the day you can tell me what I can and can't do with my house. Simple as that.
The neighborhood I live in now has a homeowner's association, and to be honest if I had known that prior to the day we went to close on the house, I absolutely would NOT have purchased my current house. I found out about the association literaly at closing, when the attorney was ticking off the fees. He mentioned homeowner's association dues, and when I said, "Hey, wait a minute! HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION DUES?" It was at that point that I found out that there was an association in my development. Of course I had no choice but to continue on - I had already transferred in my job and had sold the house in New Jersey, and all of our stuff was on the truck on the way to the new house by then. So we closed on the house and became unwilling members of the association.
I absolutely despise my homeowner's association, because they have some of the stupidest rules that I have ever heard of in my entire life.
As it is right now, the board of the association is made up of the developers of my subdivision; the bylaws state that when the subdivision is "100% complete" - meaning that all of the lots are sold and all of the available houses are up - the control of the association would be turned over to the homeowners. Until then the association is controlled by the developer and their lawyers. Sounds reasonable, right?
Except for this little jewel: All new construction in my development came to a screeching halt when the housing market collapsed two years ago! There has been ZERO new construction since then, and I don't forsee the development being "100% complete" anytime in the near future. I guess the board saw it, too, because last December when they sent us our statement for dues, they said they were taking names of homeowners who were interested in serving on the board because they were going to turn the board and the association over to the homeowners since construction had stopped. Of course I put my name in!
Well, that was December 2008, and I got the exact same letter again this year. I personally know of four people in my neighborhood in addition to me that volunteered for the board, so there's no good reason why it hasn't been turned over to us yet.
So in the mean time, we're all living by rules set by a real estate development company that was trying to get all of the property sold as quickly as possible, meaning that the neighborhood needed to be a "showcase" for all of the prospective buyers driving around looking at things. And some of those rules are absolutely stupid, let me tell you! Here's the most stupid of the bunch:
You can't leave your garage door open, period. You must open it, get what you need out of the garage, and close it immediately. Failure to follow this rule will result in a warning for the first offense and then a fine.
You can't park any vehicles on the street, period. If your driveway is full, then that's just too bad. Failure to follow this rule will result in a warning and then a fine.
You can't park cars in your yard, period. (I agree with this one, but readily admit that if you could park on the street you wouldn't need to park in your yard!) Failure to follow this rule...well, you get the idea.
You can't have chain-link fences, period.
Any fences must be plank wood and must be "scalloped" in design. They must also come up along the side of your house far enough to cover your AC unit. (NO, mine doesn't. Screw 'em.)
You can't erect metal sheds, period. Any sheds erected must be covered in aluminum siding and must match the design of your house; i.e., if your house is light grey with a dark green roof, then your shed must be light grey with a dark green roof.
And I saved my all-time favorite for last, and you ain't gonna believe this one! (I have the bylaws on file to back this up, too!)
Ready? Here it is: The association board members have the right to ENTER MY HOUSE and evaluate the style of INTERIOR LIGHTING installed, and order me to remove it if they don't like it!
All I can say is this: ANYONE who enters MY house without either my permission or a search warrant is leaving in a body bag!
The wife and I have discussed where we'll end up in the future, and we're both agreed that this won't be the last house we ever buy. We're also both in agreement that the next house we buy will NOT be someplace where there's a homeowner's association!
In the mean time, I'm still waiting for the association to turn the board over to us...I'll keep you posted.
IHC
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Smell of Woodsmoke and the Klondike Derby
One of my favorite things is one of the simplest things there is, that being the smell of wood smoke - or a campfire, to be more precise. Every time I smell wood smoke, I'm automatically transported back to when I was a kid and was in the Boy Scouts, and went on my very first camping trip ever.
I was in Troop 512 in Highland Springs, Virginia, the troop being sponsored by New Bridge Baptist Church. The church was pretty big, and the Scout troop had its own one-room building behind the church at the end of the parking lot. The building was pretty big, big enough for the whole troop to meet there, and it had a big fireplace on one side of the room. I was in the troop from the winter of 1969 until the summer of 1972 when my family moved to North Carolina, and those few years in the Scouts are some of my most favorite times growing up.
I joined the Scouts in late November of 1969 at the urgings of a 6th grade classmate of mine, David Nunnally. As soon as I got involved in the troop I started working on my first rank badge, Tenderfoot. There were a couple of skills I'd have to master before I could get the badge, and those could only be done on a camping trip since they had to do with woodlore and things like that. As it turns out, that was no problem because the troop was planning on going on a camping trip in January, 1970 to participate in the annual Klondike Derby. I was going along, and I was very excited about it!
A brief explanation of just what the Klondike Derby is all about is required at this point.
It was based on the Klondike gold rush of the 1800's, and consisted of a course laid out through a large wooded area that had "stations" on it. At each station, the scouts would be required to perform a Scouting skill such as knot tying, first aid, fire building, etc. The stations were manned by judges, who were the scoutmasters from each of the participating troops and the sponsoring Council. Each skill had a time limit and a minimum standard, and if you completed it in the time limit and according to standards, you were awarded a "gold nugget" which was actually a small rock painted gold. In addition to earing gold nuggets, you were also competing for time - the faster you completed the entire course, the more gold nuggets you were awarded at the finish. The course was laid out in a very large circle - one year, the course was measured out at just under three miles - and the troops would be started off on the course two patrols at a time in ten minute intervals. One would go clockwise, and the other would go counter-clockwise; ten minutes later, two more patrols would take off, and so on until all entries in the Derby were on the course. Each troop could enter as many patrols in the Derby as they could field, as long as each patrol met the minimum requirements.
Did I mention that each patrol entered in the Derby had to build a dog sled like was used in the Klondike gold rush? And to make matters worse, the sled had to be built to Derby specifications, meaning that there was a minimum length, height, and width for the sled. Additionally, the sled had to contain certains items of camping gear like the gold rushers would have carried, such as a tent, food, clothing, etc, everything you would expect to find on a sled of the time. You lost points for missing items from the mandatory list, and you can bet your sled was checked at entry time. And lastly the sled had to meet a minimum weight - if the sled was too light, you either withdrew the sled from the Derby, or you stacked ballast on it until it met the weight minimum. (The last year I ran the Derby with my troop, we ran it with a 25 pound log on board.)
So ya wanna guess who pulled the sled through the woods? The scouts, that's who. You had to have one driver and at least six "sled dog" scouts pulling it, but no more than 11 scouts total. The runners of the sleds were all lined with tin so they slid pretty easily across the open ground, but once you got those babies into the woods and started pulling them across the broken ground, dense woods, creeks and streams and all that other crap found in the woods - well, you get the idea. I participated in three Klondike Derbys, and only one - the last one - was done when there was actually snow on the ground which, believe it or not, actually made it harder to pull the sled through the woods. Over open ground you could flat-out fly, but when you hit the woods and had to traverse the sled up over logs and such, slipping around on the snow made it that much harder.
At the end of the day, the patrol with the fastest time AND the most gold nuggets was declared the winner, with 2nd and 3rd prizes being given out as well. The second year I competed, we placed 3rd by one nugget.
So my first camping trip ever was to the Klondike Derby in January, 1970, and the week before the trip my father took me to the local Army/Navy Store in Eastgate Mall and bought me a brand-new, canvas pup tent complete with floor! Then we went to the local Sears store that sold Boy Scout equipment where he bought me an official Boy Scout sleeping bag! Man, I was in tall cotton!
The troop gathered together on the Friday before the derby and loaded the sled - we only fielded one sled each year because we didn't have enough troops for two - into the back of our scoutmaster's old Ford pickup truck, and then we convoyed out to the derby site and picked out our campsite. The rest of the afternoon and early evening was spent with the older scouts showing me what I needed to know, like how to set up the tent, how to tie knots that wouldn't slip, things like that, and by about eight o'clock at night I was fairly beat. So I slipped into my tent, took off my clothes, put on my pajamas like a good little boy, and climbed into my sleeping bag to get some much-needed sleep.
Did I mention that this camping trip took place in JANUARY?
One of the things that the older scouts either forgot to tell me or didn't tell me on purpse as kind of an "initiation" of sorts was that when you went camping in the winter and intended to sleep on the ground, it wasn't the amount of covers you had on top of you that mattered, but how much you had beneath you - between you and the groud - that counted. The more layers of insulation between you and the ground the better, because without it the cold of the ground would freeze you like a popsicle in no time flat. And they didn't tell me this, so when I climbed into my brand-new sleeping bag wearing my pajamas, the only thing between me and the ground was a canvas tent floor and the back side of a sleeping bag.
I liked to froze to death.
The next day was the Derby, and I swear I'd never worked so physically hard in my life as I did that day pulling the sled along with the others scouts in my patrol. At the end of the day when we had eaten, we had the traditional "snipe hunt" during which I was formally inducted into the troop, and after that I started to head for my tent to try and sleep despite the cold. It was at this point that one of the older scouts let me in on the secret to keeping warm while camping in the winter time, and he got two or three blankets out of the troop supply chest and put them on the ground under my sleeping bag. Then he told me NOT to take off my clothes but to only take off my boots, and sleep in my clothes for warmth. He told me that if I slept with my boots on my feet would swell while I slept, and my boots would get so tight as to impede the circulation in my feet which could really be trouble. After passing these pearls of wisdom on to me I hit the sack, and slept like a log - a warm log, at that!
Somewhere during the evening my patrol leader came and woke me up, calling me out to the campfire where the Scoutmaster presented me with my Tenderfoot badge which I had earned that day during the sled run.
Sunday morning we packed up the sled and the scouts and headed back to the church, where our parents all picked us up. I came home smelling like wood smoke, which my mother commented on (but not in a bad way since my dad had been a scout, too) and which I found to be not all that unpleasant. My first Klondike Derby and camping trip was behind me now, and over the next few years of Scouting they would be followed by many more.
And you can bet that I made sure that the next new scout that joined us on a winter camping trip didn't freeze his butt off the first night like I did.
Except for that snot-nosed little whiny crybaby that came up to our troop from the Webelos in '72, that is...but that's another story for another time.
IHC
I was in Troop 512 in Highland Springs, Virginia, the troop being sponsored by New Bridge Baptist Church. The church was pretty big, and the Scout troop had its own one-room building behind the church at the end of the parking lot. The building was pretty big, big enough for the whole troop to meet there, and it had a big fireplace on one side of the room. I was in the troop from the winter of 1969 until the summer of 1972 when my family moved to North Carolina, and those few years in the Scouts are some of my most favorite times growing up.
I joined the Scouts in late November of 1969 at the urgings of a 6th grade classmate of mine, David Nunnally. As soon as I got involved in the troop I started working on my first rank badge, Tenderfoot. There were a couple of skills I'd have to master before I could get the badge, and those could only be done on a camping trip since they had to do with woodlore and things like that. As it turns out, that was no problem because the troop was planning on going on a camping trip in January, 1970 to participate in the annual Klondike Derby. I was going along, and I was very excited about it!
A brief explanation of just what the Klondike Derby is all about is required at this point.
It was based on the Klondike gold rush of the 1800's, and consisted of a course laid out through a large wooded area that had "stations" on it. At each station, the scouts would be required to perform a Scouting skill such as knot tying, first aid, fire building, etc. The stations were manned by judges, who were the scoutmasters from each of the participating troops and the sponsoring Council. Each skill had a time limit and a minimum standard, and if you completed it in the time limit and according to standards, you were awarded a "gold nugget" which was actually a small rock painted gold. In addition to earing gold nuggets, you were also competing for time - the faster you completed the entire course, the more gold nuggets you were awarded at the finish. The course was laid out in a very large circle - one year, the course was measured out at just under three miles - and the troops would be started off on the course two patrols at a time in ten minute intervals. One would go clockwise, and the other would go counter-clockwise; ten minutes later, two more patrols would take off, and so on until all entries in the Derby were on the course. Each troop could enter as many patrols in the Derby as they could field, as long as each patrol met the minimum requirements.
Did I mention that each patrol entered in the Derby had to build a dog sled like was used in the Klondike gold rush? And to make matters worse, the sled had to be built to Derby specifications, meaning that there was a minimum length, height, and width for the sled. Additionally, the sled had to contain certains items of camping gear like the gold rushers would have carried, such as a tent, food, clothing, etc, everything you would expect to find on a sled of the time. You lost points for missing items from the mandatory list, and you can bet your sled was checked at entry time. And lastly the sled had to meet a minimum weight - if the sled was too light, you either withdrew the sled from the Derby, or you stacked ballast on it until it met the weight minimum. (The last year I ran the Derby with my troop, we ran it with a 25 pound log on board.)
So ya wanna guess who pulled the sled through the woods? The scouts, that's who. You had to have one driver and at least six "sled dog" scouts pulling it, but no more than 11 scouts total. The runners of the sleds were all lined with tin so they slid pretty easily across the open ground, but once you got those babies into the woods and started pulling them across the broken ground, dense woods, creeks and streams and all that other crap found in the woods - well, you get the idea. I participated in three Klondike Derbys, and only one - the last one - was done when there was actually snow on the ground which, believe it or not, actually made it harder to pull the sled through the woods. Over open ground you could flat-out fly, but when you hit the woods and had to traverse the sled up over logs and such, slipping around on the snow made it that much harder.
At the end of the day, the patrol with the fastest time AND the most gold nuggets was declared the winner, with 2nd and 3rd prizes being given out as well. The second year I competed, we placed 3rd by one nugget.
So my first camping trip ever was to the Klondike Derby in January, 1970, and the week before the trip my father took me to the local Army/Navy Store in Eastgate Mall and bought me a brand-new, canvas pup tent complete with floor! Then we went to the local Sears store that sold Boy Scout equipment where he bought me an official Boy Scout sleeping bag! Man, I was in tall cotton!
The troop gathered together on the Friday before the derby and loaded the sled - we only fielded one sled each year because we didn't have enough troops for two - into the back of our scoutmaster's old Ford pickup truck, and then we convoyed out to the derby site and picked out our campsite. The rest of the afternoon and early evening was spent with the older scouts showing me what I needed to know, like how to set up the tent, how to tie knots that wouldn't slip, things like that, and by about eight o'clock at night I was fairly beat. So I slipped into my tent, took off my clothes, put on my pajamas like a good little boy, and climbed into my sleeping bag to get some much-needed sleep.
Did I mention that this camping trip took place in JANUARY?
One of the things that the older scouts either forgot to tell me or didn't tell me on purpse as kind of an "initiation" of sorts was that when you went camping in the winter and intended to sleep on the ground, it wasn't the amount of covers you had on top of you that mattered, but how much you had beneath you - between you and the groud - that counted. The more layers of insulation between you and the ground the better, because without it the cold of the ground would freeze you like a popsicle in no time flat. And they didn't tell me this, so when I climbed into my brand-new sleeping bag wearing my pajamas, the only thing between me and the ground was a canvas tent floor and the back side of a sleeping bag.
I liked to froze to death.
The next day was the Derby, and I swear I'd never worked so physically hard in my life as I did that day pulling the sled along with the others scouts in my patrol. At the end of the day when we had eaten, we had the traditional "snipe hunt" during which I was formally inducted into the troop, and after that I started to head for my tent to try and sleep despite the cold. It was at this point that one of the older scouts let me in on the secret to keeping warm while camping in the winter time, and he got two or three blankets out of the troop supply chest and put them on the ground under my sleeping bag. Then he told me NOT to take off my clothes but to only take off my boots, and sleep in my clothes for warmth. He told me that if I slept with my boots on my feet would swell while I slept, and my boots would get so tight as to impede the circulation in my feet which could really be trouble. After passing these pearls of wisdom on to me I hit the sack, and slept like a log - a warm log, at that!
Somewhere during the evening my patrol leader came and woke me up, calling me out to the campfire where the Scoutmaster presented me with my Tenderfoot badge which I had earned that day during the sled run.
Sunday morning we packed up the sled and the scouts and headed back to the church, where our parents all picked us up. I came home smelling like wood smoke, which my mother commented on (but not in a bad way since my dad had been a scout, too) and which I found to be not all that unpleasant. My first Klondike Derby and camping trip was behind me now, and over the next few years of Scouting they would be followed by many more.
And you can bet that I made sure that the next new scout that joined us on a winter camping trip didn't freeze his butt off the first night like I did.
Except for that snot-nosed little whiny crybaby that came up to our troop from the Webelos in '72, that is...but that's another story for another time.
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)