Back just 3 and a half decades ago or so, I was an aspiring graduate student at Virginia Tech. My advisor was Larry Adler; he had started at Columbia University with a degree in math and went on for his master's and then a PhD in Rock Mechanics at the University of Illinois.

His mentor was Steve Boshkov from Columbia. [ http://www.aimehq.org/programs/award/bio/stefan-h-boshkov ] . Larry invited Steve to Blacksburg for a seminar presentation to the graduate and undergraduate mining students. That evening he invited me over for dinner and brandy, so there we were, student, mentor and übermentor. Being young and brash enough to get away with it, I dared ask Steve what was the most important thing in life.

Without flinching he spent 10 minutes holding my fascination and that of Larry as we both just sat listening to the anecdotes that came following this simple statement:

"In life, you do well if you can get along with people, and you do well if you can get along with money. If you can get along with both you do very well. If you can influence either one you are quite successful, and if you can influence both you are phenomenal. That's all there is to it, purely and simply."

Engineers do incredibly well with numbers, and good engineers are the ones who relate those numbers to money and the wealth of their company. Very seldom, though, do you find an engineer who is really good with people. If you do, you make him a manager. But, the engineer who is skilled with money and with people makes himself your manager and proceeds far beyond any expected level. That's why Steve stayed at Columbia, because he could influence the engineering curricula heavily inserting humanities and arts to give engineers what they really needed much more than another course in mechanics or mathematics.

That's about as far as my tired old brain wants to go this morning, especially with my cluster headache meds kicking in, but it should be food for thought for anyone who wants to bother researching the topic even casually. Think about it.
That is all.
Word.

 http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013/08/07/wife-of-ft-hood-survivor-dod-is-gagging-us/

Call me crazy, but it seems to me like this would-be king is letting the power go to his head more every day. I can understand the legal discussion behind why he wanted to throw a gag order on the victims of the Ft. Hood heretic treasonal seditionist jihadist, Hassan, but the last time I read the Constitution it still said that the Congress shall pass no law restricting the right to assemble and speak; and, to me that points out fairly succinctly that it is, indeed, the Congress that makes laws, not the President. A king, on the other hand, is different, I suppose, in that what he says from the throne goes no matter how absurd it may be.

In related news:

 I see that The President's city, Chicago, is rapidly taking a lead from Detroit. And, they are leading the league in dead African Americans (black people, persons of color? I never know any more how we are to refer to certain groups). I see that 3 black kids beat up a white kid on the schoolbus, but that the driver did not intervene and the mainstream media didn't report it. Notice that I did not say I was surprised by this happening. Things like this happen every day, more than once, and the only thing I see on TV is "pastor arrested for sexual assault on teenagers" which is about a guy, an assistant youth pastor (general flunky on the staff) that was fired from his position as a youth pastor and later was stupid enough to fool around with a couple of girls to whom he had "ministered" in days of yore. Our friends on TV can sensationalize anything they want to, or subdue everything they want to.

I see Brian Williams is getting a new knee. I see that every night. They certainly did not do 10 minutes with Dr. Nancy Snyderman when I got my new knee. Perhaps that was because it was my left knee and it's Brian's right knee, maybe it's because I am so old that it would not be newsworth, but Brian is so young (!) that we should feel sorry for him.

I could keep going all day. I won't. I'll sign off for now; but, I shall probably be back soon. 

The POTUS decides what?

The evening news made me think of Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth":

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

The court made two decisions. Neither one of them "legalized gay marriage", despite what the thousands of people in the street are saying. 

One was on Proposition 8 in California. What the court decided was that they could not make a decision because the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue. So, the ruling of the inferior court negating Proposition 8 still stands until someone brings the matter to the Supreme Court who has standing to do so. The court made no decision on the merit of Proposition 8 itself.

The other was on DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Court did not negate the act, again as the media and the demonstrators would have you believe. What the court decided was that one provision of DOMA, the which stated that the Federal Government did not have to recognize same sex unions, was found unconstitutional if the union is recognized by the couple's state. That did not mean that the Federal Government legalized or illegalized gay marriage, it just meant that people who have a legitimate marriage license need to be treated as marriage when the Feds apply the Federal laws and regulations.

I am pretty tired of all of this stuff. The Constitution is silent about marriage; that means it is left to the states. And, if you get right down to it, the only reason the states have ever had anything to do with it is to make money by charging for marriage licenses. Historically, marriages belonged in a church, and men (yes, men) would register a marriage to show they owned the spouse as chattel property. Not a really fulfilling and rewarding approach, I say.

Why doesn't the government just get out marriage altogether? We the people are not going to be collectively satisfied with anything they do. Why should they do anything? Why should they even discriminate between married and not married people? 

Oh, I could roll on this forever ...

Hey, guys! I haven't been here for a while. I've been preoccupied with ... well with all kinds of stuff. Politically and religiously so many things are happening that make me want to puke and yet nothing I say is going to change the minds of those whos eminds I think need to be changed. I cannot stand lies, either from the government or from the people/sheeple in response to the government or to their church.

Today I realized something. I was considering one of my pet projects, crusading against human trafficking. I thought:
Sure this is right. A woman is put to work as a prostitute so other people make money off of her, and the traffickers never get caught, the Johns get maybe 5 days or a fine, and the girls, who really don't willingly choose that lifestyle as far as I can tell, get a felony conviction.

People abuse women so punish the women. Hey, why not, because
People use guns to kill other people - ban guns
People eat Big Macs and get fat - ban Big Macs
People drink Big Gulps and get fat and get high blood pressure - ban Big Gulps
People use drugs and hurt themselves and others - ban drugs [may be partially appropriate]
People abuse alcohol and hurt themselves and others - ban alcohol
People drive too fast and kill people - put speed restrictions in car computers.
People use Sudafed to make meth - ban Sudafed
People use pitbulls for dog fights - ban pit bulls

Hey, I think I see a pattern here. There is a common denominator. Actually it's a common parameter, a common factor in each function and it is

PEOPLE

Just when I was about to throw away my women, guns, Big Macs, Big Gulps, drugs, alcohol, car, Sudafed and dog because I am an honest law-abiding person and will do what Senator Feinstein asks. Of course. 

Hey, here's a concept. If people do bad things, punish or rehabilitate the people, not what they used to do those bad things.

Too easy, I guess.

 

Finding Common Ground

"These three ideals – wanting to protect innocents from evil, valuing human life, and cherishing peace – are the same for those who are against guns and for those who are not against guns." - Destinee, of FateOfDestinee

I have a son-in-law who devotes himself to his family and to our LORD. I like to believe that I have and do so also. We concur, as Destinee said, with the three ideals, at least I am pretty sure he does and I know I do. I have never specifically asked, though, about his view of guns, since I am pretty sure we don't share the same views.

I may be wrong. He grew up in Idaho, which is certainly not an eastern bastion of disarmament frenzy like Mayor Bloomberg runs. They really do hunt in Idaho. I am quite sure he is familiar with firearms. Maybe I should ask instead of assuming.

Me, I grew up in Oklahoma. I had the Daisy Red Ryder Carbine (my brother had the pump), we got a Savage/Stevens 15-A for Christmas when I was 9, .22 short/long/long rifle, single shot. We later moved to Wyoming and a friend loaned us a Remington .270 to take with us for hunting. In college, I had a Beretta .25 automatic, a Norwegian 1911 in .45 ACP, a Colt revolver in .45 long Colt, and a Smith and Wesson Highway Patrolman in .357 magnum. After college I picked up a Springfield 1903 in .30-'06 to use hunting. Notice, though, that the Beretta is pretty much only designed and used for personal defense, despite what James Bond used to think, the Colt .45 was, well, a Colt .45, after all, the .45 ACP was designed to stop drug-crazed Moro tribesmen with one shot, the Springfield was the assault rifle of 1903, World War I and the start of World War II, and the .357, sorry Dirty Harry, is recognized by many people as being the best self-defense caliber to have around. [OK, you 1911 fans. A Federal 230-grain +P HST in .45 ACP has a muzzle velocity of 950 feet per second and an energy of 461 ft-lb. A Federal 158-grain tactical Hydra-Shok in .357 magnum has a velocity and energy of 1240 and 539.]

Completely stolen from the leadoff link, reproduced in case that page should go away

Ephesians 4:15-16 – 5 ThingsTo Consider In Controversy

Daily Devotional Bible Verse
Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16 ESV)
Even amidst our Christian lives, arguments, disagreements, and tension-filled conflict will come, but when it does, here are five Biblical principles to consider before we ever open our lips:

1. Listen. Be silent in your mind as well as your mouth. “Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent” (Proverbs 17:27-28).
2. Be teachable. Are you in the wrong? If so, how can you respond in humility, grace, and repentance? If you genuinely desire to grow in Christ-likeness, then remember that God uses iron to sharpen iron, and frequently, there will be sparks (Proverbs 27:17).
3. Think. Take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). We are in a spiritual struggle against an enemy who seeks to divide us. Don’t let your thoughts grow vengeful, spiteful, or believe lies about others. Be disciplined in your thought life.
4. Seek unity. We are one body with many parts. If this is true (which today’s text says it is), that means each believer’s mission is the same. Think about it, is the eye’s mission different than the heart’s? In its function—what it does—yes. In its mission—why it does it—no. Remember, we are one, a unified whole. Seek unity between yourself and your brothers and sisters because we’re playing for the same team.
5. Model love over winning an argument. Always speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), because love seeks unity over division, and peace over strife (See especially 1 Corinthians 13:1-7). Sometimes, though, people are simply wrong, misled, or in sin. When this is the case, don’t shrink from the truth, but don’t use it as a weapon to wound, either. Love reconciles, pride dominates.

Our lives will not be free of controversy until Jesus returns. Until then, let’s remember his words, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

Copyright © 2013 Daily Devotionals

Reproduced with respect but without specific permission

Instead of Gun Control, which is really People Control, let's have enforceable laws to eliminate violence and illegal gun use

Monday, April 8, 2013 at 6:23pm

I was watching the news tonight doing my normal seething at the media and the reports of the legislature over this "gun thing." It ISN'T guns. My guns are hanging in my shop and haven't committed any crimes or killed anyone. They don't run around in lowriders, street racers, junkers or Escalades harassing anyone or intimidating and scaring people. They do not randomly discharge through walls or windows.

In Des Moines there are a lot of people WITHOUT GUNS who commit crimes and kill people. They are not particularly linked, guns and crime; but, Barry Soetoro wants to take advantage of a good crisis and make political points out of the tragedy and the deaths of children about whom I do not believe he really gives much of a hoot (yes, I realize that is an incredibly strong statement. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it).

So, Mr. Obama says "do the right thing for the families in Newtown."  First, shouldn't he be concerned about doing the right thing for the country, for we the people? As I recall, we're the government and he just executes our laws. He does not proclaim them. He does not propose them in Congress. He enforces them once they are passed. So to meet the needs of "we the people" and respect the families of Newtown, I would think that we would pass laws that ensure that violence cannot occur again.

Instead, he wants to pass laws that would do nothing more to stop the illegal use of weapons, would do nothing to provide defensive capabilities for the school, and would have made no difference if they had been in effect for the last 10 years. Actually, they have been. Senator Grassley commented last week that he really was not looking forward to this week, because we would be talking about laws that criminals would still ignore and law-abiding citizens don't need to follow.

It's the behavior, not the tools. Here's a few things that would make sense to me:
1. Life in prison for anyone who commits a felony using a firearm.
2. 30 years, with at least 10 before parole, for anyone who commits a misdemeanor using a firearm.
3. Life in prison for anyone who participates in either selling or buying a firearm in a straw transaction.
4. Life for selling interstate without a license.
5. Life for selling to anyone unqualified to own a firearm. In Iowa, you need a permit to acquire OR a permit to carry weapons - it's easy to ask to see that before selling a firearm to someone. Out of state you have to ship to a dealer, anyway.
6. Size of magazines (they are not clips) is pretty insignificant. The world's fastest REVOLVER shooter shoots six rounds, empties the brass, reloads six round, shoots them, makes all bullseyes and does so in less than 3 seconds.

7. Kind of rifle doesn't matter. A trained former marine using an obsolete and antique cheap Italian rifle with obsolete ammunition pulled off 3 shots in two seconds at 200 yards, including a head shot and brought the USA to a standstill. The Mannlicher Carcano does not use a magazine. Another nutcase occupied a university tower with a good hunting rifle and an assortment of miscellaneous firearms, killed 17 and injured 32 before being "subdued", into pieces, by two rounds of 00 buckshot from a 12-gauge shotgun. Again, his Remington 700 does not use a magazine.

That would be a good start. It does not infringe on rights to keep and bear arms, either, just identifies appropriate punishments for certain crimes involving arms.