Not even Winter Yet

Lakeland is about four months away. The days will start getting longer in only ten days. I was walking around by the airstrip and it's really soggy. A great sunset tonight and the winds died down. It's so wet that my cellar sump pump is running on and off, all the time. It's so wet that we have a new pond in the side yard. It sure looked pretty in the sunset. I want to get the M-10 Cadet out of here tomorrow to take it flying and show it to the guy who is buying it. The winds are forecast to be out of the west at 5 to 15 mph. I may take off downwind tomorrow to try to avoid the sloppy spots on the strip. I figure if the take off roll doesn't suit me I can just stop or I can hop on down to the east end and stop and take off back to the west into the wind. The strip looks pretty nice except for the soft spots. I don't want to make any new ruts. After I fly a bit, I think I'll leave the M-10 over at Cambridge. Wife can pick me up. Then I won't have to fool around with the strip till it dries out. Except I will be bringing the Cherokee back at some point. A couple of weeks ago I flew a sailplane around up at Smyrna. It was sunny and dry and calm wind and cool. I thought there might be some lift. Or a little lift. But it was a sled ride. A sled ride is when you just glide back down to the airport. You're a glider. I enjoyed the ride and asked my tow pilot mentor for another tow. This other guy Barry was there too. Barry took the glider up and he didn't find any lift either. So I took my second sled ride. It was great. Not much else in flying goin on here. I may do a flight or two to Carolina in the Piper. I'll do a Cadet flight to Easton for the transponder check. That's about it. So I'll tell a story or three in my coming posts. I guess about Dynamo Dave. And one about me checking out on the mail. And one about Garrett County. If anybody should ask me if I've done anything "Christmassy" I may reply, " Well I've had a sled ride or two".

Cimate Change E-Mail Scandel

I haven't read the famous e-mails that some "bad guy" scientists have been caught with. Apparently they were cooking the books to make Global Warming worse than it really is. I know almost nothing of the facts of the e-mails. I know almost nothing about atmospheric phenomena. But I must comment anyway. The first thing that popped into my simple mind was, "Why would a scientist scew his hard earned data"? If he does that, he's not a real scientist. And he'll eventually be caught in the lie because the next guy to experiment in that area will find him out. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought that all the fun in science was about satisfying one's curiosity. If you doctor the data, you won't learn anything. I can't understand the motivation. Why risk toasting your career? I gotta think there is more to this story, and the story has another slant to it, to defame the idea of man- made global warming. I can see why someone might want to cook the books to show there is no man-made climate threat. So they can keep the factories and power plants, and cars going the way they want. But why would someone want to falsify research to hide the good news that climate change is not as big a threat as we thought it was! Someone suggested it was because the scientists involved would be out of a job if they told the truth. They wouldn't be needed any more and they would have no more grant money. I simply can't believe that. The work they are doing is very important right now, even if they find out man-made climate change is negligible. I hope it is negligible. Remember my post about Creationists? They figured if they could just stop Darwin's work in it's tracks, by discrediting it, then we could all just go back to Genesis and forget all about it. So now, the status quo lovers at Fox news and the right wing Christians want us to know that the bad scientists are faking the data, so now lets just forget global warming and that wacko Al Gore and face the next ice age or drought as it comes. Just like when General Motors taught us back in the nineties that we can never have an electric car. I think that the sad flaw in this kind of inflexible thinking is that no matter how this scandal comes out, the scientists will keep studying the atmosphere. And keep learning. We'll find out. Even the skeptics will agree that we're in a warming era right now. Even if it's not man made. We need to keep working on it. And history has shown us, that once the Genie is out of the bottle, there is no turning back and putting our heads in the oil enriched sand. LloydLou ITTU :::::+:::::

Creation vs Evolution

Creation vs Evolution. I don't believe in either one. And they are apples and oranges. No rational man could believe in either one. Evolution has little to do with "creating" something. If something evolves, then it's already been created. "Creation" is a story in Genesis. It's two pages in the bible. That's it. That's the body of knowledge that Creationists have to work with. "Creation" is not something to be chosen as opposed to something else like Evolution. The creation story is either believed, or it's not believed. So there's not much to discuss after that. The theory of evolution is updating as we speak. Darwin is a founder, a contributor, a namesake. Evolution is just one small part of biology along with Genetics. Genetics. Genesis. Biology is just one small part of Biological Science which is part of science in general, etc. There's a strategy that Creationists use that has always surprised me. The strategy is to debunk Darwin. Most of Darwin isn't opinion or postulation. It's research he did on a boat someplace working very hard. So one could only debunk parts of Darwin's work, not all. And modern science admits Darwin's flaws. But modern science is well past Darwin. Let's say Darwin is completely debunked. What could the Creationists get out of that? No one would start believing in Creation all of a sudden. I don't believe in the creation story. The reason I don't believe in the Creation story is because I believe it is a myth. It's not because I have another better or truer story of how the "world" began. I don't know how the world began. Oddly, that doesn't bother me. I also don't know what will happen to me after I die. That doesn't bother me either. That doesn't mean I don't cling to life like the rest of you, my fellow survivors. I want to grow older. When I stop growing older, I die. LLITTY :::::+:::::

Glow Ball warming

I'm kind of confused about the "Global Warming" controversy. I know some of the reasons why it's confusing me. I'd like to find for my own satisfaction why there is a controversy about it. The disagreements over global warming keep reminding me of the the long unsettled controversy of "Evolution vs Creation". The dialog is vaguely and strangely familiar. I think the "Creation" folks would side with the " global warming is a false theory" folks. I think the "evolution" folks want to team up with the "global warming is now and dangerous" folks. "Creation" believers think it's wrong to study the planet and the cosmos too much. They don't think man should meddle into God's beautiful creation. They don't believe man could affect the planet. They believe the planet is about 6000 years old and that the dinosaurs are either a fake, or lived concurrently with man ala "Flintstones". The "Evolution" people think man evolved from lower primates and all life evolved from a Hydrogen primordial soup. They think that man with his "greenhouse gasses" is destroying the planet. As I write this and you read this we all agree that this is a generalization full of presumptions. But stick with me here. I'm not so sure how I want to make my point. I'm going to try to make it in one sentence. Here goes: The conflicts in both of these arguments arise out of beliefs, not out of knowledge or facts. That's it. LloydLou ITTY :::::+:::::

I love you Santa

Santa Claus vs Jesus Christ. The eerie parallel between Santa and Jesus is rarely spoken of. In fact, it may be in bad taste. Taste is kinda subjective isn't it. My wife gave me something to taste the other day. She was making ginger snaps from scratch. She had cubes of raw candied ginger. It smelled great. She offered me one. I popped it in my mouth expecting a new Christmas delight. In about three seconds I was spitting the stuff all over the kitchen floor. She was laughing and I thought it was because she had tricked me. But no. It was just funny to see me gagging. She does actually like the stuff. I don't think I'll ever try a sugar plum or a chestnut. Taste is subjective. Let me cut to the chase. Everything is subjective. Including my statement: "Everything is subjective". So what is this eerie parallel between J.C. and Santa? I don't have to tell you do I? Believer or non-believer, you know where I'm going here. First, and most important: Santa Claus and all Christmas magic only work if you believe. Christianity only works if you believe. Next, the historical parallel. There are lots of Nicholas's in history. Legend suggests that our Christmas Nick was St. Nicholas of Patara, Turkey born around AD245. He became the Bishop of Myra. The name "Myra" comes from the resin myrrh. He performed many miracles and became famous. His most famous miracle was the saving of three maidens from a life of forced sin as their poor yet noble father could not pay their dowries. The Saint delivered enough gold for the dowries to the shabby castle by dropping a sack of gold down the chimney. Ever after, the townfolk, hoping to pick up a stray nugget, would put their socks under the chimney. The date of his death December 6 was celebrated with a golden feast. His character was melded into Christian tradition as the saint of children and sailors and merchants, and teachers and students. You know the rest about the British, French and mostly Dutch. Now Jesus. Jesus was 245 years earlier than Santa. Jesus has this huge book about him, the New Testament, and his fame is huge. There's not much historical stuff about Jesus. Mostly legand. Like Santa only more so. So he's bigger than Santa, yes. But actually, that is the parallel I'm going for here. Santa is maybe in that group of the most famous personalities in the world. You got Buddha, Mohamed, and Confucius and pretty soon Santa comes up on the list. He's in the same time era and fame size as many of the big "gods". So both Santa and Jesus are real people, but they're so hugely bigger than life. Because legend and custom have followed them through lots of oral tradition, then somebody got around to writing some of it down. Gee, do you think any of the early story tellers and later writers ever made anything up that was interesting and threw it in? Or took a real character who had great stories told about him, and melded that character in to our Nick or J.C. Would they have done that? This all happened over some 1500 years mind you, before any common man could have access to the legends, other than oral lore. Look... 1500 years is a long time. None of us know exactly how legends of St. Nick or Jesus came about. Let me give the 1500 years a perspective we can identify with. When I was five years old, Davy Crockett was my favorite person. The Disney series was on and I watched every week. Fess Parker, Buddy Ebsen. I believed in both Santa Claus and Davy Crockett. I had a children's book, a "Golden Book", about Davy. In the first part of the book there was a part about Davy fixing the world after a deep freeze. It was the great ice age. There was a picture of Davy in his coonskin cap hammering against the "Gears" of the world to get the world moving again. And he did it. He killed a bear when he was three years old. He knew every tree in Tennessee. His father could "lick" any man in Tennesse and he, Davy, could lick his father. He was a US Congressman. So there's a few legends for us. And that's a lowly mortal, not a God!. And it's not 2000 years ago. It's what 180 years ago? And a studied historian would tell us that they don't know what happened exactly at the end of the siege of the Alamo. But if you ask me I know that David Crockett, standing beside Jim Bowie, was one of the last men killed and he was swinging his Kentucky long rifle by the barrel at a horde of Santa Anna's men. It's folly to try to tell me that it could have happened any other way. It's a legend. But it's also a "meme". It exists in the culture. Here's a scenario for you. Maybe the legends about Nick grew and grew into the guy we now have as described by Clement Moore. The legends were just made up. Gosh, I believe in Father Christmas and I wish you wouldn't say he was made up. He's a real, historical person. But apparently in the case of Jesus, the New Testament story is exactly true. It has never been changed even once during the 2000 years it has been told, written, canonized, translated. Even though there are dozens of historical "Saviors" whom, if we read about them, we would find many of the same stories that are attributed to Jesus. That can only be coincidence. The exact record is in the bible and even if the bible contradicts itself, the story of Jesus is not in one iota legend. Wow. Talk about faith and miracles. OK. I'll get to the point. You say Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, was the son of God. I say Santa can deliver presents to one billion households in 48 hours (he flies with the earths rotation, and his sled can warp into a time machine to keep him in a relativity cloud). And he can transport into any living room through pure magic aided by nano technology. It seems to me we both have an equally viable claim. After all, it's about belief and faith. Now one more thing. It makes more sense to believe in Santa. If you're going to have a subjective "belief" in something, than you can choose the belief. You can believe you're going to be the next Tiger Woods. Ah, bad example. You can believe world hunger will be gone in one year. Or that ice cream will become a perfect health food. You can believe something good and wholesome and happy. Like the reality of Santa Claus. Why by virtue of simple common sense, would you believe in a God like the father of Jesus? He condemns you as a horrible sinner from the day you are born. Due to a Creation error that only he could be responsible for! You need a Savior because of him! He has the power to fix the world and save you. But he does not. I believe in Santa Claus. It's nicer. It's saner. More positive. Healthier mentally. I'm gonna e- mail him right now. I've got a few Christmas wishes. They require miracles. Except for the one material thing I want. It will be easy for S. Claus. It's just a metal detector, Santa please. He has a lovely Elf to help him in my part of his route. Merry Christmas!!! ..... .... LloydLou ITTY :::::+:::::

I know I look a fright

I have just completed a three day and night stint of being crawled under a rock. Day one- all I felt like doing was watching junky TV. And that's all I did. Day two- I stayed in bed another day. I still just watched TV. This was mostly those inane Christmas movies they have on the Hallmark Channel. My shame is lessened by the fact that I drew the line at the Billy Ray Cyrus made for TV movie, and didn't watch that. But to give you an idea of the depth of the abyss, I watched, while surfing, a few episodes of "I Carly". Today was day three. I actually move around the house and about an hour ago I played my guitar. I tried to play Rita Coolidge songs, but knew neither the words nor the chords. I like this one song she has that was written by that lady who was Burt Baccarat's wife. "I'd rather leave while I'm in love, while I still believe the meaning of the word". I have the Christmas Spirit now though, after all those movies. We had our 22nd anniversary yesterday. Wife has been wonderful to me. She has allowed me this long quiet funk without complaint. Only kindness. We're going out to a late lunch tomorrow and maybe that can be a bit of a celebration. I think we're both a little "cityed out" from a week in Vegas. I don't have the energy to rant. I'm still not completely recharged. But I hope to soon rant about electric cars and airplanes and why the heck we don't have them. And Creation vs X. Where X equals "we don't know". How can people argue with X? And a comment about lines we wait in and some other stuff. C U Soon. .. LloydLou ITTY :::::+:::::

road rage

I hope to speak about a few of the things I see every day that just don't make sense. Most of the things that don't make sense are just there. They don't bother me.......or I even like them. They are "cute". But I'll probably be dredging up the things that don't make sense that really bug me. I hate the expression "pet peeve". It's so trite that it's actually making a comeback. I've heard it used recently. But pet peeve doesn't describe my gripes here. Because you can dislike something that is sensible. You can dislike getting up for work for example. My gripe is with stuff that is ignorant, unfair, just weird, the hard way, wasteful, etc. I don't want to be too hard on people who are just not that bright. Or who have irrational fears that they can not help. Or maybe they were raised from infancy with a prejudice or hatred that is hard to shake off. Or as in my case, have "old timer's disease". OK here comes an example. Here in America we are all immigrants. The first generation immigrants can have a thick accent and broken English. I have a gripe with, and don't understand, how people can make fun of someone's broken English. Usually, almost certainly, the person making fun speaks only English. So this maid or gardener or busboy who talks funny is so "dumb". The interesting thing is that, this laborer is bilingual. He or she is fluent in English. So let the laughing American who makes fun of the way someone talks-- let him go to the laborer's native country and try to say one single sentence, he can't. How dare that jerk laugh at someone's accent when that someone is fluent in at least two languages. It's a stupid prejudice. OK. One more Geezer Gripe for this post and that's it for now. Everybody on the road driving thinks they are a better driver than everyone else. Except me. I know I am a lousy driver. I miss the turn I need. I get in the wrong lane. I go the wrong speed. I get lost and try to turn around. People honk at me. I admit it. I'm a bad driver. But luckily, I'm a safe driver. In 44 years of driving I have had one accident. I hit a deer not 4 miles from my house. On Thanksgiving Day 6 or 7 years ago. The deer was killed, the car was wrecked. My son and I were not hurt. It was so sudden that I didn't even get to hit the brakes. Other than hitting that deer, which could not have been prevented, I have not put a scratch on a car in 44 years. Now I've totaled 2 airplanes mind you, and maybe damaged a couple of others, but those stories belong in the other blog! So, I'm not a good driver, but I'm a defensive driver and I stay out of trouble. My defensive driving habits allow me to watch other drivers. I'm fascinated by "road rage". It comes at all different levels. Sometimes it's a guy who just shakes his head in disgust as he passes you because you're going "too slow". Or maybe someone flips the bird. Or they yell something. And if you read the news, you know what this behavior can lead to. I know what causes most road rage. If a person is a mean, nasty, SOB: he will be that way in his car too. If he has a bad temper, he'll have it in the car too. If he's a bully, he'll be a bully in the car. That makes common sense. But there's more. There is the almost classic case of Mr. regular nice guy. But when he gets behind the wheel, he is a madman. Everybody else is stupid. Everybody else is a bad driver. This guy never has a nice drive. That's the difference between Mr. normally nice and the bad temper or bully guy. The SOB, bad temper guy may have a good day going and he'll drive OK. He may even get in nasty traffic and still drive OK. But Mr. Normal Nice guy can never have a good time behind the wheel. Mr. Normally Nice is a lunatic behind the wheel because he is scared to death of the car. He's afraid someone will find out that he is a very, very poor and unsafe driver. He lashes out at other motorists before they can see his terrible secret. Road rage. My true gripe is tailgating.