In the first half of the 90s, I started out at somewhere around 280 pounds and, through a lot of walking and running,  managed to get down to 204 lbs.  I was maintaining it pretty well – until I got hooked on wallyball, a variation of volleyball that’s played in a racquetball court.  Volleyball was one sport that I really enjoyed in Phys. Ed. and, even though I was over 40, I held my own in wallyball.

Since I didn’t go out for sports when I was in school, I never had any sports injuries.  In a few short months of playing several times a week after work, I strained both rotator cuffs and a trapezius muscle and had a finger on my right hand dislocated. 

With recovery from each of those, I never did get back to a good fitness routine and then, at home in 1996, I had a lumbar disk herniate.  That put me on short term disability and bed rest.  I never had to have surgery for it, but recovery took a bit of time and by the time I was getting around fairly well, I was totally out of the fitness habit.

Now retired, I’m 67 and, like so many, have health issues that might have been prevented with regular medical checkups, exercise and weight loss.  I’ve been exercising very regularly for the last two years, but haven’t been able to lose much weight. After my last checkup with my doctor, I decided to try what has worked before – walking, and a lot of it.

Walking on the elevated track at the gym, one and a half to two hours a day, usually six days a week, I’m down about eight pounds in six weeks.  This time, too, I started at about 280 pounds. 

I just have to keep doing what I’m doing.  I’ve tried many, many times in the past with dieting and/or exercise, but I’ve never been able to have the success like I had back then.

Revised from a blog post written April 1, 2009

Two new national memorials to veterans of modern conflicts have been authorized to be built on federal land in Washington, D.C.,  one of which will be a few hundred yards west of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Combat patrols decades apart – Vietnam and Iraq

National Desert Storm and Desert Shield War Memorial

After Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait on August 2, 1991, President George H. W. Bush ordered the organization of Operation Desert Shield, which included a dramatic increase in troops and resources in the Persian Gulf.¹ The operation was to protect – shield – Saudi Arabia from Iraqi invasion and  assemble a coalition force that eventually totaled over 600,000 for the liberation of Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm began in January 1991 with five weeks of ferocious air and naval bombardments, clearing the the way for a ground campaign that drove the Iraqis from Iraq in 100 hours.²

The National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial Act authorizes the National Desert Storm War Memorial Association to establish a commemorative work on federal land in the District of Columbia to commemorate and honor those who, as members of the Armed Forces, served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield. The memorial will be built at the SW corner of Constitution Avenue and 23rd Street NW in Washington D.C.³

The memorial is expected to be completed in 2021.

Global War on Terrorism Memorial

The September 11, 2001 attacks killed 2,977 men, women, and children.  In response, American embarked on what became the longest, most difficult and possibly never-ending campaign: the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

Consisting of several “wars” and “operations,” and called by different names,  the subsequent military campaigns combating terrorism worldwide have resulted in nearly 7,000 additional lives lost and more than 52,000 wounded from among the more than 2.5 million Americans deployed to support these wars and operations.⁴

Establishing a memorial for the veterans of the Global War on Terror faced a significant obstacle in one requirement of  the 1986 Commemorative Works Act, which governs the development of new memorials.  The act imposes a 10 year waiting period after the official end of a conflict before a memorial in the nation’s capital can even be considered.

This would require waiting until 2021 for considering a memorial for  Operation Iraqi Freedom⁵ (Iraq War) and 2024 for Operation Enduring Freedom,⁶ which, while primarily referring to the War in Afghanistan, was the official name used by the U.S. for the Global War on Terrorism.  Operation Enduring Freedom was succeeded by Operation Freedom’s Sentinel⁷ in continuation of the Global War on Terror.⁸

The Global War on Terror has developed into a multi-generational conflict that could last for decades – or longer.⁹  Establishing a memorial for veterans of a fight with an almost unlimited geographical reach and no obvious endpoint¹⁰ would require a waiver of the mandatory 10-year wait.¹¹

A multiyear memorial campaign led to a bill waiving the 10-year wait.  President Trump signed the bill into law on August 18, 2017, authorizing the construction of a national memorial honoring those who fought and died in the Global War on Terror – and those doing so now and in the future. Expected to be completed in 2024, the project must go through a detailed process that includes fund-raising, site selection, design and construction.¹²

The bill had been introduced in the House on February 6, passed in the House on July 28 and the Senate August 3.¹³

Back in 2004

I think the first time I ever considered the possibility of some future memorial to the warriors fighting in Iraq and/or Afghanistan was about three years after the September 11 attacks.  The conflicts were in the news daily and, with the presidential election campaign in full swing, were in politics as well, along with election year controversies over the Vietnam era service of both candidates.

The following 2004 blog post captures some of my thoughts from almost 15 years ago – thoughts on that time, on the Vietnam war, and on whether a memorial would be needed to bring home the terrible reality of a war that already was being questioned.

An Iraq Conflict Memorial?

September 21, 2004 – The news today has many parallels to a war that was fought when I was young: The daily toll of lives taken, the rehashing of the war records of two candidates,¹⁴ the images on the television.

To be sure, Iraq is not Vietnam.

It’s not the same for our soldiers. Today they have the support of the public.

It’s not the same for me.

In 1967, I was a sophomore in high school, a somewhat introverted kid from Nebraska transplanted to the steamy heat of Houston, Texas. I was moving from a comfortable lower middle class life into poverty as a 15 year old. Vietnam was a far distant place and not a true reality for me.

I graduated in 1970, still in the Houston area, from the same high school I had been in for two and a half years, even though we had moved five times. Still poor; I drew a high lottery number. Vietnam was still unreal and far away, something in the papers every day and on the evening news. It was just a part of life.

I joined the Navy and got married. Our first daughter was born at Travis Air Force Base early in 1972. At that time, POWs were returning home, many of them for treatment in the same hospital my wife and baby daughter were in. But it was time for us to move on to our next duty station. Vietnam was a closer reality, but I was in the Navy, not likely to have to go there, and, besides, it was just part of life.

Time passed and so did the Vietnam conflict. It never was a war, they said. Just a conflict. It never was close to me.

I don’t remember when I first saw the memorial.

What I do remember is how striking it was. It fascinated me. It stunned me. It was emotionally painful. It brought tears to my eyes.

With all of the names on the wall and the little mementos left by family, friends, and comrades, the wall brought home to me some of the horrible reality and waste. The loss of all those young lives; the impact on families; the sons, husbands, and fathers who were lost; the terrible toll that it took on our country.

Iraq is not the same as Vietnam… and it’s surely not for me.

Iraq is far away, but it is very, very real to me. It’s not just because my son-in-law is in the service and could be sent there. It’s the wall. It brought the reality of that long ago conflict and helps, for me, with the reality of today.

I fully endorsed the attack on Iraq. I thought it was a just cause. I was wrong. My belief is that it’s taken us off track in the war on terror. We’ve lost ground because of it and it’ll take much, much longer to get past it. I don’t know that it will ever be won. I expect it will eventually just fade away.

Vietnam was just a part of life for me. The wall, with its simple stark beauty, showed me some of the terrible reality of a war we didn’t fight to win.

I just hope a memorial to the fallen in Iraq is not needed to teach anyone else that lesson for this conflict.

______

Blog post update:  January 1, 2007 – Around the time that I wrote this, I got back in touch, for the first time since 1971, with a friend from high school. She said she had wondered about me over the years and that, on a trip to D.C., she had searched for my name on that wall.

1. Bush orders Operation Desert Shield – This Day in History|August 7, History(.com), (accessed June 17, 2019)
2. National Memorial to Gulf War Veterans Moves Forward with Site Dedication – Richard Sisk, February 26, 2019, Military.com (accessed June 17, 2019)
3. National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial – The National Desert Storm Memorial Association (accessed June 17, 2019)
4. A National Global War on Terrorism Memorial – Dorian de Wind,  September 11, 2017, HuffPost (accessed June 18, 2019)
5. Iraq War – Wikipedia (accessed June 18, 2019)
6. Operation Enduring Freedom – Wikipedia (accessed June 18, 2019)
7. Operation Freedom’s Sentinel – Wikipedia (accessed June 18, 2019)
8. War on Terror – Wikipedia (accessed June 18, 2019)
9. Legislative History – Global War on Terrorism Memorial Foundation (accessed June 18, 2019)
10. The Time Has Come for a Global War on Terrorism Memorial – Paul J. Springer, September 10, 2018, Foreign Policy Research Institute (accessed June 18, 2019)
11. Advocates start work on what — and where — the Global War on Terror Memorial will be – Leo Shane III, September 24, 2018, MilitaryTimes (accessed June 16, 2019)
12. Trump signs off on Global War on Terror Memorial – Dianna Cahn, August 21, 2017, Stars and Stripes (accessed June 18, 2019)
13. H.R.873 – Global War on Terrorism War Memorial Act – Congress.gov (accessed June 18, 2019)
14. George Bush and John Kerry

While all’s not rosy, all’s not lost for Social Security beneficiaries long term.

The most pervasive rumor and myth about Social Security is that it is going to disappear, if not for you, then for your children.  The good news is that its imminent demise is greatly exaggerated.

Social Security’s trust funds are forecast to be depleted by 2033 to 2037.¹ After that, continuing social security taxes are expected to be enough to pay 75 to 80% of “promised” benefits, unless needed changes are made before then.

With the slow-as-molasses progress of anything in Congress, now is the time that our Representatives and Senators should be working to shore up Social Security and implement long-term solutions.

2035 is only  16 years away, after all.

Putting that into perspective, that’s just 4 presidential election cycles.

Surely that’s enough time for changes to be made in Social Security to prevent adverse impacts to aging beneficiaries – the sooner the better to ensure that any changes have time to improve the health and viability of the trust funds.

Americans are living longer and having fewer children, resulting in an aging population. Today, as workers of lower-birth-rate generations replace those of the retiring baby-boom generation, 16% of Americans are 65 or older.  By 2040, this is projected to increase to 20%.²

This places additional strains on the system.

As the trust funds approach depletion, the rising percentage of older more-likely-to-vote constituents  should  increase the political pressure for making realistic changes to the system.

“In the 2016 presidential election…, 71 percent of Americans over 65 voted, compared with 46 percent among 18- to 29-year-olds, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.”³ Antagonizing older American voters dependent on Social Security is not politically smart.

Some suggested changes include:⁴

• Reducing benefits
• Raising the ceiling on income subject to Social Security tax ($132,900 in 2019)
• Raising the Social Security tax rate (currently 12.4%, split evenly between employee and employer, unless you’re self-employed)
• Reducing the cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that help the value of Social Security keep pace with inflation
• Raising the full retirement age

Most beneficiaries will be opposed to reducing benefits or COLAs.  The other potential changes would be more palatable for those already receiving benefits and, by delaying implementation, for those soon to sign up.

One idea I haven’t seen is raising the age at which one can start receiving early retirement. For those born after 1960, full retirement age is 67, while early retirement age is 5 years earlier at age 62.  If the full retirement age is slowly raised for people born after, say, 1969, raising the early retirement age to maintain the 5 year difference between full and early retirement would seem to make sense.

For the near term, there’s no need to worry.

But further out?  Washington needs to do its job for its seniors!

1. The 2018 OASDI Trustees Report says 2034.  OASDI is the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program is the official name for Social Security in the United States. (accessed June 16, 2019)
2. Coping with the Demographic Challenge: Fewer Children and Living Longer – Social Security, Office of Policy (accessed June 16, 2019)
3. The Immense Power of the Older Voter – AARP, April 30, 2018 (accessed June 16, 2019)
4. 4 Social Security Myths That Need to Die – The Motley Fool, June 15, 2019 (accessed June 16, 2019)

Originally posted October 20, 2004

Give me a break!

I hear now the board that’s used in a classroom can’t be called a black board or a white board. From what I understand, it’s derogatory to blacks or to whites if you use that kind of descriptive words – it’s either chalk board or marker board.

I guess it’s a good thing that there’s not anyone that might be traumatized by the use of the words chalk or marker.

I don’t know what you would call the boards then.

And I guess we’re supposed to call flip charts something other than that because flip is a word that is offensive to Filipinos.

Granted, it’s not right to use a word in a derogatory manner like that when using it to refer to an ethnic group.

However, when did black become a derogatory term for blacks and white become a derogatory term for whites?

What am I supposed to call a back flip or flipping a burger (or the finger)?

Sometimes some peoples’ ideas of what is politically correct are just so retarded! ¹

Oh! sorry!

I meant, so MR!

What’s MR?

I understand it’s the politically correct term for mentally retarded.

I guess it’s politically okay to use an abbreviation in this case because they, the MR, can’t spell.

Give me a break!

Our society is carrying politically correctness to ridiculous extremes. Yes, we need to be sensitive to what is hurtful to others.

However, sometimes the folks that think these things up need a reality check.

1. Around the 1960s, “retard” and “retarded” began to be commonly used in place of “moron”, “idiot”, “cretin,” and “imbecile,” – terms that were perceived to be offensive. Since then, the terms “handicapped” (United States) and “disabled” (United Kingdom) have replaced “retard” and “retarded.” The term “mental retardation,” written in many of the United States’ laws and documents, with the approval of Rosa’s Law, will be phased out with “intellectual disability” replacing it. – Wikipedia (accessed June 15, 2019)

Publication history:

• October 20, 2004 – original publication on North Farnham Freeholder
• February 26, 2011 – Recovered from my abandoned North Farnham Freeholder blog at the Internet Archive WayBackMachine and saved to original publication date on Exit78
• June 15, 2019 – Updated and republished

Popular Song of the Week

Bad Moon Rising by Creedence Clearwater Revival

Some events of the week

• June 8 – President Nixon announces that 25,000 American troops will be withdrawn from the Vietnam War by the end of September.
• June 9 – Republican President Nixon’s nominee Warren E. Burger is confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by the Democrat-dominated United States Senate, 74 to 3.
• June 10 – A column of Soviet troops and tanks crosses the border from the Kazakh SSR (now the nation of Kazakhstan) into the Xinjiang autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China, moving through the Yumin, and shots are exchanged between Chinese borders guards and the invaders.
• June 11 – The first trip by sled across the Arctic Ocean is successfully concluded on the Norwegian island of Vesle Tavleøya after starting at Point Barrow Alaska on February 21, 1968.
• June 12 – For the first time in history, part of Niagara Falls is “turned off” for repairs and geological study for preservation of American Falls.
• June 13 – The “Amen break“, a 6-second drum solo that would become “the most sampled musical track of all time,” is recorded for the first time.
• June 14 – Dr. Joseph Weber announces the first detection and measurement proving the existence of gravitational waves, postulated by  Albert Einstein in 1916 as part of his general theory of relativity.

Be careful what you ask for.

In October 2004, near the end of the U.S. presidential election, I wrote, “Protest votes are meaningless, worthless, and wasted. They do not make a difference!”

That election was between George W. Bush and John Kerry, with Ralph Nader as a third party candidate, trailing far behind.

In November, Nader received 463,655 votes, for 0.38 percent of the popular vote, placing him in third place overall. Those who voted for him in this election made no difference in the end result of the election.

However, the election of George W. Bush, four years earlier in 2000, may have come down to votes that were neither cast for him nor his Democrat opponent, Al Gore, but, rather, to a minor party candidate, Ralph Nader – votes that were cast in a single state – Florida, which turned out to be that election’s tipping point state.

On election day , November 7, 2000, between 7:50 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. EST, all major television news networks (CNN, NBC, FOX, CBS, and ABC) declared that Gore had carried Florida’s 25 electoral votes – predictions primarily based on exit polls.  As actual vote totals came in through the night, the networks retracted their prediction when Bush began to take a wide lead.  Early in the morning of November 8, the networks declared Bush had carried Florida and had been elected president. With 85% of votes tallied and Bush ahead by over 100,000 votes, Gore privately conceded to Bush. By 4:30 a.m., with all of the votes in, Bush’s lead had dwindled to 2000.  The networks again retracted their predictions and Gore retracted his concession.

Without Florida’s 25 votes, Bush had 246 electoral votes and Gore had 250.  Wisconsin and Oregon were still too close to call, but their combined 18 electoral college votes were not enough to bring either candidate’s total up to 271 votes, the minimum need to win.  All interested eyes turned to Florida.

Florida’s results were close enough to trigger a mandatory machine recount under state law.  When completed, Bush’s lead had dropped to just 300 votes. Gore requested hand recounts, as provided under Florida State law, of Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties ballots.

A five-week battle ensued over the ballots, rules, law, and courts.

When the recount dust settled, George Bush had defeated Al Gore in Florida by 537 votes.  Gore got Wisconsin and Oregon, but Florida put Bush over the top by one electoral college vote.

An election spoiler?

Ralph Nader had received 97,421 votes in Florida.  Several studies suggest that Nader’s participation was a critical factor in Bush’s victory, that Nader voters’ profiles more closely matched those of Democratic voters and, in the absence of Nader’s candidacy, those voters would have been more likely to vote for Gore than Bush.

A few thousand less “protest votes” for Nader might have placed Al Gore in the White House.

The background for the Final Results Electoral Map image is a butterfly ballot from Palm Beach County, Florida. (link accessed June 13, 2019)

What is required when the traffic light turns to yellow?

There is a bit of misinformation online about what the actual requirements are. A number of websites that I’ve reviewed say that you can receive a traffic ticket if a traffic light turns red while you are driving through the intersection. In most of the United States, this isn’t true.

The laws governing when a driver may enter an intersection on a yellow traffic light aren’t the same in every state.  Most states have a permissive yellow traffic light law, while others have a restrictive yellow law, of which there are two variations.¹

Permissive Yellow Law

• • A driver can enter the intersection during the entire yellow interval and be in the intersection during the red indication as long as the vehicle entered the intersection during the yellow interval. Under permissive yellow law, an all-red clearance interval must exist as a timing parameter to ensure safe right-of-way transfer at an intersection.

Restrictive Yellow Law

• • In one variation, a vehicle may not enter an intersection when the indication is yellow unless the vehicle can clear the intersection by the end of yellow.
  • In the other variation, a vehicle may not enter an intersection unless it is impossible or unsafe to stop.

After Yellow

After the yellow light, there is sometimes a time period – called the “red clearance interval” – between the time that the red light comes on and when the green light comes on for cross traffic to move.

Some Yellows are shorter than others

The Institution of Transportation Engineers has an equation for determining how long a yellow change light should be on.

So what does a driver do when the light turns yellow?

Do I stop or do I continue on through?  The area where you may be undecided is called by some the “dilemma zone” and it’s where thousands of crashes occur each year in the United States.

Eight states have restrictive yellow laws. In those states, if you are in the intersection when the light turns red, you can be ticketed for breaking the law – and you might be caught by a red-light camera. The restrictive states are Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In those states, if you can stop without hard braking, then stop when the lights go from green to yellow.  If you can’t, then continue on through the intersection – there shouldn’t be a need to accelerate.

Even in the other states, that’s probably a prudent approach.

1. Traffic Signal Timing Manual – Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration (accessed June 10, 2019) This document has been superseded by a later edition, but the descriptions for the yellow law aren’t as good in it.

A Beginning

My first blog post was in 2004, almost 15 years go. It was a beginning.  I had no idea if it was something I would keep doing.¹

Sometimes my blogging has been sporadic.  Other times, it’s no more than sharing an image.  But, I’ve never stopped doing it

A huge number of blogs started up both before and after I did.  Most  no longer exist in any form, other than, perhaps, the Internet Archive’s WayBackMachine.² While most of the blogs I used to follow no longer exist, some continue, with varying frequencies of posting. A few post daily.

A Renewal

I’ve started going through some of my old blog posts, many of which have problems.  I’m going to cleanup and, probably, repost an updated version of some of the better ones.  For these, I’ll have a redirect on the old post to send visitors to the new posts.

I’ll also cleanup some of the clutter.  When, and if, I get done, I’ll probably have quite a bit less than the 2700 posts that are currently listed as published.

Some of the earlier posts have no images or images that could be improved. On some posts, original images have gone missing.  Some of the “cleanup’” may be no more than adding a relevant image or two or replacing missing or less than optimum images.

1. That first blog post was on Blogger. The blog was called Skedaddle’s blog and was posted on Blogger on a blogspot.com domain. I didn’t care much for Blogger and looked at a number of different options, eventually settling for blogging using WordPress self-hosted.  Sometime in 2011, after I dropped that URL, someone else picked it up, using it for a blog that has a grand total of 3 posts, all of them in 2011.
2. I’ve used the WayBackMachine to retrieve quite a few posts that were lost for one reason or another, including those that were on my original blog.

September 2004

I don’t know which one I should be angry at, my friend or that damn doctor.

My friend didn’t take care of herself. On the surface she was a laid-back, easy-going person, seemingly without a care in the world – everyone’s friend. Yet very few of the people who knew her really knew how sick she was… and how depressed she was.

Several years ago she had heart related surgery. I don’t remember exactly what.

She didn’t take care of herself the way that heart patients are supposed to and had to have another operation.

She still didn’t take care of herself. Her health deteriorated.

We had met her and her husband when we joined a mixed league for bowling many years earlier. They were also just starting in the league and ended up being our bowling partners – and friends – for years.

As her health deteriorated, she was no longer able to bowl. Her husband stayed on the team, but another lady took our friend’s place.

Our friend developed diabetes, and didn’t take care of herself.

She was everyone’s friend, but very few people really knew her.

Part of the reason she didn’t see a doctor was that she knew she would be told that she would have to have more surgery. They still had debt from the previous surgeries. Her husband was self-employed and they didn’t have insurance.

She didn’t want to build up more debt.

She didn’t take care of herself.

She had suffered for years from depression.

A sore – a blister – developed on one of her feet.

She didn’t take care of herself.

The sore didn’t heal.

After several weeks she finally decided she had to see a doctor.

The sore had developed into something worse. She was a diabetic and had not taken care of herself.

The doctor was not a doctor she had seen before. It seems that whenever she would go to see a doctor, it would be someone different.

The doctor – I don’t know his name, and I’m not sure that I want to know his name – apparently really laid into her when he saw the condition of her foot.

He asked her – practically accusing her – if she was an alcoholic, an addict, if she was on meth.

He told her that the sore had developed into gangrene and that they probably wouldn’t be able to save her foot or her leg, and, “oh-by-the-way, you might lose your other foot, too.”

Years before, a lady that our friend knew had been hospitalized from complications arising from diabetes. She had a lot of problems, including the loss of both legs, before she died after a lingering illness.

Our friend didn’t want that to happen to her.

Our friend disappeared.

She was missing for two days.

Two days was the waiting period for a handgun.

________

I miss my friend, especially on Wednesdays, like today. On Wednesdays we go bowling.

My friend didn’t take care of herself. I miss her and I’m angry.

I don’t know which one I should be angry at, my friend or that damn doctor.

________

October 2007

I’m not angry any more. I just reflect on how unfortunate it all was.

Unfortunate that she didn’t take care of herself.

Unfortunate that the doctor wasn’t more humane in her instance.

Unfortunate for her husband who has had a host of problems in the time that’s passed.

Unfortunate for the poor soul that found her body.

________

June 2019

It’s been 15 years.

We think of her and her husband on occasion.  He remarried.  His new wife was a strange person, not like our friend at all.  He had difficulties both legal and financial over the years.  We haven’t seen him  in years.

I know of at least one doctor that was as uncaring about women and their health problems as the last doctor she saw. I don’t know if it was him, but I  can certainly imagine it.

The original of this article was one of my earliest blog posts, published September 15, 2004.  I republished it again, with some new thoughts at the end, on October 8, 2007.  Our friend died 15 years ago this month, so it’s appropriate to revisit and include a little at the end.

The previous posts redirect to this new one.