notesfromnokomis

A little of this and a little of that

It’s time to revisit a couple of issues.

(1) I was listening to ESPN Radio today and a guy named Chip Brown, representing Horns Digest was discussing the likelihood that the Texas Longhorns will soon be in search of a new head coach. Mr. Brown said that Texas was “on unchartered ground.” I was going to let it go because speakers should not be held to the same grammatical and linguistic standards as writers.

But then he said it a second time. Not only is the “unchartered” part wrong (as previously discussed), but he has taken the idiom from its rightful place in the water and brought it to dry land. I have never heard that usage before. Stop it! The term is “uncharted waters.” You can be in them or on them, but they are “uncharted,” not “unchartered.” And they most emphatically are wet.

(2) In an alarmingly distressful development (please assume sarcasm), I have determined that I have had a barely discernible impact on the internet. I just searched for “uncharted waters” through 38 Google pages (that was all of them), and there was no entry from notesfromnokomis. Then in a fit of overzealous commitment, I searched for “unchartered waters” through 45 Google pages. Again, that was all of them, and again, nothing. Then I searched for “unchartered” and “nokomis,” and came up as the first entry. With apologies to Descartes, my blog shows up on Google (after a very specific search request), therefore I am.

(3) In an unexpected development, Oklahoma State keeps winning. They are now tenth in both the AP Poll and the Coaches Poll. They were 11th in last week’s College Football Playoff Rankings, which will be updated tomorrow night. These rankings are based on their current record of 8-2, which should be 9-1. Recall that they lost on an untimed play after the game clock had struck zero that by rule should not have been allowed. At 9-1, they would likely be ranked no lower than 7th and would have a decent chance to make the playoffs. Instead, Central Michigan continues to cling to a win it does not deserve, severely handicapping Ok State’s championship aspirations.

(4) I am thrilled that Hillary Clinton will not be our next President. The only way I could be happier is if Donald Trump was (also) not to be our next President. Alas, one of them winning was inevitable, and thus it came to pass. I have had an aversion to Donald Trump since his hucksterism first crossed my consciousness. Still, I believe we should grant him a blank slate. I will only judge him based on his actions as President, though some of his appointments are troubling. Maybe he will rise to the occasion, stranger things have happened.

(5) Mosquitos may be the most dangerous animal in the world, but bears have always frightened me more. This despite being assured, as a child growing up in Maine, that bears were likely to be as afraid of me as I was of them. I begged to differ, but never had good evidence to the contrary. According to the Bangor Daily News, there have been only six reported attacks of humans by bears in Maine in the last 24 years, and four of those were by wounded bears attacking their hunter. (Maine has a black bear population of approximately 30,000, roughly one for every 44 Mainers.) My fears have largely subsided, partly because I now live in suburban Ohio. Then came news last week that a 60 plus year old woman had been attacked by a black bear in her back yard in Maryland. The woman survived, as did all of the Mainers who were attacked, but I’m back on high alert.

(6) Congratulations to the Cubs. They ended a long drought and they did it in style, winning three elimination games in a row, including game seven in extra-innings. They are relatively young, the field players are the 5th youngest of the MLB’s 30 teams. But you might be surprised to learn that their pitchers are not young, they were the 2nd oldest in the league according to baseball-reference.com. Though I expressed concern that their regular season schedule was a bit soft, their winning percentage in the playoffs (against three good teams) was .647, higher than their regular season winning percentage of .640. I stand corrected, for neither the first nor the last time.

(7) Happy Thanksgiving.

It all started with a walk

I like to walk around my neighborhood and the local park at night. I invariably carry my walking stick, which I purchased at Acadia National Park. It has a certain Maine feel.

Walking sticks provide many benefits including, balance, less strain on joints, and safety. Through the years I have run into the occasional raccoon or opossum and feel more at ease with a stick to keep them at bay, especially if they should appear rabid. My stick is no help at all against the most dangerous animal in the world: the mosquito.

According to multiple sources, mosquitoes are responsible for the death of over 700,000 humans each year. Mosquitoes are not intrinsically dangerous to humans. For instance, there have been no reported deaths from blood loss caused by excessive mosquito bites. Compare this with dogs, which cause death mainly by transmitting rabies, but which are capable of killing a human by biting and mauling it.

Mosquitoes are dangerous because they transmit diseases. According to the June 2016 issue of Smithsonian magazine, of the more than 3,500 species of mosquitoes, only 100 or so spread disease to humans. Three genera are especially dangerous to humans: anophelese (which spreads malaria), aedes (which spreads yellow fever, dengue, and the Zika virus), and culex (which spreads West Nile virus among other diseases).

The real killers are the various viruses and parasites for which mosquitoes are a vector. Many mosquito-borne viruses and parasites are so resilient and so mutative that in many instances we have given up trying to eliminate them – it only makes them stronger. Instead, scientists are currently considering attempting to extirpate the worst mosquito vectors. For example, malaria can only be contracted from an anophelese mosquito. Eliminate the anophelese and we just might eliminate malaria. That sounds like a great idea, though there are likely many unknown, indeed unknowable, unintended consequences waiting to bite us. (Pun, sadly, intended.)

Eliminating all mosquitoes is likely as impossible as it is undesirable. After all, mosquitoes are a significant part of the food chain. But we don’t need to eliminate all mosquitoes, just the worst few dozen species. The most promising theory at this time is to alter the genetic code of males so they produce only sterile offspring. This process won’t work quickly, but could in time eradicate an entire species.

Even the world’s greatest champion of biodiversity, E.O. Wilson thinks we should consider eliminating anophelese mosquitoes. http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-04/why-famous-biologist-wants-eradicate-killer-mosquitoes If we can find the right switch, he is willing to be the executioner.

In an attempt to atone for not taking Wilson’s class when I was in college, I have read several of his books through the years. I especially recommend: The Future of Life, Letters to a Young Scientist, Consilience, and Half-Earth. His wit and wisdom are manifest throughout. Here are a couple of highlights from The Future of Life: 1. Losing 90% of an environment means losing 50% of the species contained therein, losing the last 10% eliminates the last 50% of species, and 2. If a small animal in the wild is especially beautiful, it is likely poisonous, if it is also easy to catch, it is likely deadly.

This post has meandered from walking sticks to dangerous animals to species cleansing to E.O. Wilson. I wish my nocturnal peregrinations were as wide-ranging.

Vote (Scylla and Charybdis cont.)

I always vote. I vote in non-presidential years, I vote in primaries, and I vote when there is nothing on the ballot except a levy. I realize that I am but a single solitary vote, but it is mine and I want to use it. So, I vote.

This year I will utilize my vote on a quixotic (and largely unknown) protest. I cannot vote for either major party candidate. I outlined earlier why I find both of them objectionable. I don’t believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. I believe in voting for the candidate that I like best, and that most assuredly is not Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

I get to vote (as do all of you) for whomever I choose – assuming that person is a registered candidate. A friend told me last week that he wrote in himself for President and yours truly for Vice-President. I appreciated the vote of confidence, and I think he would be a better President than either major party candidate, but his vote will not be counted. Only seven states allow voters to write in candidates who have not registered. Ohio is not one of them, which means that John Kasich’s vote for John McCain will not be counted either. Nine states don’t allow write-ins at all. The other 34 (including Ohio) allow votes only for write-in candidates who have registered.

My fervent wish, every time we hold an election involving federal elective offices is that the President, a majority of the Senate, and a majority of the House of Representatives, will not all be controlled by the same political party. That yields essentially a parliamentary system, which is prone to dramatic shifts of policy. Our founding fathers designed a system intended to avoid hasty decisions. Checks and balances are replete, but they are not always effectively employed.

The system depends on both houses of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court to act independently, to do what is right and just, and to assert the constitutional prerogatives of their own branch of government to constrain the other branches. These days, Congress, the President, and the members of the Supreme Court too often act in the best interests of their party. It is sad, but it will continue until we do something about it.

Congress is the worst offender. The majority party has tended to be supine, a virtual rubber stamp, when the President represents their party. The majority party has tended to be obstructionist when the President represents the other party. Instead, Congress should do its job and legislate in the country’s best interest, without regard to party or who lives in the White House.

Most importantly, Congress needs to rein in the President. The executive branch has evolved beyond its constitutional bounds largely because same party congressional members have put party above country. It is an abomination, and ultimately could lead to an authoritarian regime. Not tomorrow, maybe not in the next hundred years, but history has a way of rewarding those who seek to accumulate power.

The Roman Senate caved in to Caesar. The French Revolution devolved into Napoleon. The German people elected and then succumbed to Hitler. Democratic Russia embraced Putin’s power grab. It can happen. Congress needs to arrest the accumulation of power in the presidency before it is too late.

That is a long trail to lead you to my vote. I will vote for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. They were Republicans who were elected (and re-elected) governor of states dominated by the Democratic Party. They have proven that they can govern efficiently and work across party lines effectively and without rancor.

The party they represent believes in smaller government, unlike the Democratic Party, which enthusiastically supports bigger government, and the Republican Party, which only pretends to want smaller government. The Libertarian Party well and truly wants less government. Whether they would be able to pull it off will (no doubt) remain an unanswered question.

The rest of my votes will be largely anti-incumbent, unless I believe the incumbent has done a good job. None of my votes will be based on the party of the candidate. Straight-ticket voting is lazy and overly partisan, among the reasons we have a Congress unwilling to assert itself against the runaway executive branch.

Tuesday, you have an opportunity to assert yourself. Vote for the candidate that you think is best. Vote for the candidate you think is less bad. Vote.

Scylla and Charybdis (or rock and a hard place)

All three presidential debates and the Alfred E. Smith dinner are behind us and it is time to breathe a collective sigh of relief. We never have to see these two on the same stage again.

He is a boorish caricature of a carnival huckster. Everything (and I mean everything) is either the worst (think President Obama or NAFTA) or the best (think his properties or judgment). His world is not gray, it is exceedingly dark. Fortunately, the world I live in and the people I know are not quite as downtrodden as he suggests.

She is an uninteresting caricature of a policy wonk. She has a plan for everything (and I mean everything), whether the economy or climate-change, and they’re all on her website. Her world could not be more gray, as she seamlessly moves between public and private forums searching for whatever is most politically expedient. Fortunately, the world I live in and the people I know are not quite so chameleonic.

He is a cad. He is disrespectful, even disdainful, of vast swathes of the electorate. He says whatever flows through his brain at the moment without considering whether it might be true. It’s possible that he is so egocentric that he believes that him saying something makes it true. How else to explain him declaring that Mexico will pay for a wall, that Buffett takes the same tax breaks he does, or that he is the only person who can fix our problems. He is an entertainer, not a problem solver. He is the first presidential nominee in history who is more comfortable cutting Vince McMahon’s hair than having a reasonable rational discussion about any given topic of domestic or foreign policy. And he is angry. Why? Life has been so good to him that when he was on the edge of bankruptcy, his lenders allotted him a $450,000 a month spending allowance.

She is uninspiring. She is disrespectful, even disdainful of vast swathes of the electorate. Whether she is an inveterate liar is debatable, because politicians are forced to hedge so often that inevitably something said in one setting will contradict something said in another setting. She has more baggage than a large Royal Caribbean cruise ship. Some of it is her own and justly earned (emails, pay to play), some of it is her husband’s and not always fairly attributed to her. But when you are allowed to cherry pick a senate seat because your husband is a former president, it isn’t outside the pale to be saddled with some of his baggage. Her penchant for secrecy and defensiveness are not the normal traits of someone seeking to be the most watched and listened to person in the world.

It is almost a cliché at this time to wonder how we ended up with these two particular candidates. They each have their hard-core followers, people who would support them no matter what they so, no matter what dirt about them is revealed. This is a shame. And they have their hard-core detractors, people who would prefer voting for the actual Hitler or Stalin before voting for Trump or Clinton, as the case may be. This is even more of a shame.

One of them will be POTUS. I shudder, yet I will vote, as I always do. Next time, I will explain my vote.

Presidential Statistics

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. Whether or not it’s fair, when things go well, the President gets the credit and when things go poorly, the President gets the blame. In any given year or administration, it is possible that the Speaker of the House, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, the CEOs of the energy or auto industries (among others), the various governors, or some other person or group might have more influence on this or that national indicator. Nevertheless, I’m presenting statistics based on the last three presidential administrations. They each comprise eight years, so comparing them is relatively fair, even though the three presidents faced different internal and external obstacles and problems. I’m not making any value judgments. You can do that for yourself, though I’m guessing that these statistics will not change what you already think about Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

All statistics are presented in the same order: number at beginning of the presidency or in the previous year, number at the end of the presidency or in the last year of the presidency, and the percentage change. I collected information as of 12/31 because most information is available on an yearly basis. President Clinton was in office (for our purposes) from 12/31/1992 through 12/31/2000 and President Bush from 12/31/2000 through 12/31/2008. For President Obama, I went with the most recent statistics available; obviously we don’t yet have a full eight years for him.

All categories are presented separately with a citation to the source.

U.S. Population (millions) http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

Bill Clinton 261 283 8.45%

George W. Bush 283 308 8.72%

Barrack Obama 308 323 4.87%

Nominal Gross Domestic Product ($ trillions) https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Bill Clinton 6.539 10.285 57.29%

George W. Bush 10.285 14.719 43.11%

Barrack Obama 14.719 18.036 22.54%

Gross Domestic Product per Capita https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Bill Clinton $37,171 $44,492 19.70%

George W. Bush $44,492 $46,951 5.50%

Barrack Obama $46,951 $51,123 8.91%

Total Federal Debt ($ trillions) http://www.polidiotic.com/by-the-numbers/us-national-debt-by-year/

Bill Clinton 4.065 5.674 39.58%

George W. Bush 5.674 10.024 76.67%

Barrack Obama 10.024 19.392 93.46%

Annual Federal Deficit ($ billions, change in dollars, not percentage) http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1960_2021USb_XXs2li111mcn_G0f

Bill Clinton 290 -236 -526

George W. Bush -236 459 695

Barrack Obama 459 616 157

Unemployment Rate http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table

Bill Clinton 7.3% 4.2% -42.5%

George W. Bush 4.2% 7.9% 88.1%

Barrack Obama 7.9% 4.9% -38.0%

Divorces (thousands) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

Bill Clinton 1,215 944 -22.3%

George W. Bush 944 844 -10.6%

Barrack Obama 844 814 -3.5%

People in Federal and State Prison (thousands) http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p92.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf

Bill Clinton 884 1,381 56.2%

George W. Bush 1,381 1,610 16.6%

Barrack Obama 1,610 1,562 -3.0%

Military Spending ($ millions) https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Bill Clinton 298,356 274,769 -6.9%

George W. Bush 274,769 616,066 224.2%

Barrack Obama 616,066 604,452 -2.4%

Homicides committed with a gun http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/16/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-gun-homicides-are-down-49-percent-/

Bill Clinton 17,488 10,828 -38.1%

George W. Bush 10,828 12,632 16.7%

Barrack Obama 12,632 10,945 -13.6%

High School Graduation Rate http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_219.10.asp

Bill Clinton 71.9% 69.8% -2.9%

George W. Bush 69.8% 74.7% 7.0%

Barrack Obama 74.7% 83.4% 11.6%

Thank you for your suggestions. Needless to say, I did not conduct any of the underlying research. Using just the starting and end points is not necessarily the best way to present this information, but it is straightforward. I could have gone on and on and on, but decided to spare you (and myself) that fate.

Finally, these statistics are not intended to provide a comprehensive picture of the years 1993 to the present. Rather they provide a mere snapshot of a few things that happened during the presidencies of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama. I do not ascribe credit or blame, but you can.

Two updates and three requests

Update 1 — John Stumpf is no longer the CEO of Wells Fargo. He voluntarily submitted to a preemptive clawback, forgoing $41 million in unvested stock options, in an effort to save his job in the wake of the fake-accounts scandal. It wasn’t enough. This week, he retired. His going-away present was in excess of $130 million. After assuming responsibility for the scandal, he was ultimately, perhaps belatedly, held accountable.

Update 2 — During the debate last Sunday evening, Donald Trump referred to “the late great Abraham Lincoln.” This usage of “late” to refer to a recently deceased person occurred over 151 years after Lincoln died. The Napoleonic 85-year gap that I explained last week remains the largest published gap.

Request 1 — This week, Donn Fendler died. One of our readers requested a blog post about him, but all I have is this snippet. Fendler became a celebrity for a short time in 1939 when his 12-year old self vanished while hiking in Maine. The manhunt to find him was front page news across the nation. He survived alone for nine days and essentially rescued himself by walking into a hunting camp. A relieved nation, in the person of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, presented him with a medal as the outstanding youth hero of 1939. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donn_Fendler

He wrote a book about the experience titled “Lost On A Mountain in Maine.” According to my mother, he was a quiet unassuming man, who enjoyed visiting schools to describe his tale of perseverance to children.

Request 2 — One of my faithful readers asked whether two Joey Bosas could kill an adult black bear in hand to hand combat. Very far-fetched, of course, now that the Roman Coliseum has fallen into disuse. In my opinion, the Bosas would have no chance unless they had a weapon, even a good hunting knife would likely be enough.

Bears are strong, fast, have fantastic weaponry (teeth and claws), and are protected by thick fur. Usain Bolt, a good proxy for the fastest human, has been recorded at 27.8 mph. Black bears, even big ones, reportedly sprint 25-30 mph. Black bears routinely flip over rock looking for food and have turned over 300 pound rocks with one foreleg.

Still, a small adult female black bear might weigh as little as 90 pounds. The Bosas might have a chance against her, but I doubt it. She could kill or incapacitate them with a single blow or bite, they don’t have that capability. One way to think about this issue is to consider all the stories you have heard about unarmed humans killing a bear. As far as I know it has never happened. To think two Bosas would have a chance against a large black bear, say a 500-pounder, is shear lunacy. They probably couldn’t even kill a small adult.

Request 3 — This request is from me. As we approach the end of President Obama’s eight years in office, I plan to put together a spreadsheet of numerical indicators to compare the last three consecutive eight-year presidencies.

Question: have there been other times in our history when three consecutive presidents served eight years?

Answer: yes.

Question: when?

An example of the type of indicator I plan to compile is gross domestic product. I’d like to get 10-15 broad indicators of life in the U.S., not just indicators that measure the economy.

So – my request is to ask you for suggestions of statistics that I can compile that will give a good indication of how some significant aspect of life in the U.S. has during the past three presidencies. You don’t have to do the research, I will. But I would like help coming up with a list of noteworthy items.

Thrice we have had three consecutive presidents serve eight years. The first time was early: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. The second time was relatively modern: Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower. Truman did not serve two full terms, but I’m giving it to him because he succeeded Roosevelt so early in FDR’s fourth term. (7.75 years rounds to 8.) And the third time is now: Clinton, Bush, Obama.

On Being Late

I hate being late. I’d rather be ten minutes early than one minute late. As you are no doubt aware, not everyone feels the same way. I have several friends, colleagues, and family members, who are consistently late. Not so reliably late that I plan on them being late – because even though I expect them to be late, I don’t want to be late on the off chance that they won’t be. It’s something of a curse and among the reasons I usually carry something to read. Fortunately, having a phone these days means that there is always something to read.

We all know the standard definition of late: not on time. There are others, more or less used and useful. But I want to focus on a particular definition: recently deceased, as in “the late President John F. Kennedy.” See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/once-at-kennedys-side-now-at-one-anothers.html and http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/americas-dirty-secret-is-out-readers-on-donald-trumps-g-o-p-success/ My facetious question for years has been “when will he cease being late.”

Let’s play Jeopardy: to what question are “facetious” and “facetiously” the only answers.

This definition (recently deceased) has been in use since the early 15th century. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=late In 1906, the book “Napoleon’s Last Voyages” included a drawing of a house that was labelled “intended for the late Napoleon Bonaparte.” https://books.google.com/books?id=Chw2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22the+late+napoleon+bonaparte%22&source=bl&ots=XcTx6ewJpg&sig=6TkxptDsEGEw8ac3SVD3oBbIIPo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcmKen18nPAhXD_R4KHeIIBxUQ6AEIKTAE#v=onepage&q=%22the%20late%20napoleon%20bonaparte%22&f=false at page 188. Napoleon died in 1821, meaning that “late” was used to describe him 85 years after he died.

George Washington is no longer called “the late,” neither are Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But Freddie Mercury, who died in 1991, is — sometimes. On September 18, 2016, the Columbus Dispatch included a snippet that referred to Freddie Mercury, “the late singer” of Queen. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2016/09/18/01-science-briefs.html The New York Times recently referred to Mercury as “the lead singer” of Queen. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/arts/music/freddie-mercury-now-races-around-the-sun.html That one threw me because, according to the standard usage of “the late,” Mercury is too recently deceased to no longer have that label.

The 85-year interval between Napoleon’s death and a reference to his lateness is the longest gap I have found. If you find a longer one, please let me know. I don’t know when, but sometime in the next 20 years or so, John F. Kennedy will no longer warrant “the late” label. It’s not really necessary now. For one thing, it has been 99 years since Kennedy was born. For another thing, I’m pretty sure every person who knows who Kennedy was is well aware that he is no longer alive.

Perhaps there should be a rule, something like — a person stops being late when he or she would reasonably have been expected to die based on life expectancy. In Kennedy’s case, he should have stopped being late about 15-20 years ago. I have no idea who would police this rule.

“Facetious” is the only word in the English language that has all five vowels (without duplication) in alphabetical order.

I don’t like being late, but I’d rather be late than be “the late.”

Reader’s Digest

I recently received a copy of Reader’s Digest in the mail. It was from the publisher, attempting to convince me to order a subscription. I have received sample copies of other periodicals as an inducement to subscribe, but usually those are fake issues, essentially one giant advertisement. This was a full version of the current issue of Reader’s Digest.

Perusing it was visiting with an old friend. I read the magazine regularly as a child. I can’t remember whether we subscribed, only that I read it often. It is amazing how many of the features are unchanged, even though I haven’t read the magazine in decades.

The articles remain short, punchy. Many have a positive message. It is obvious that this is not a news magazine. The first article was Everyday Heroes, about a WWII veteran who paints portraits of fallen soldiers that he sends to their families for free. Another described a boy’s triumph over Kleefstra syndrome, a genetic disorder that fewer than 100 people in the world are diagnosed with.

There are many regular features that allow readers to send in stories to be published – Your True Stories, Life in These United States, All in a Day’s Work, Laughter is the Best Medicine, and Humor in Uniform. If the story is printed, the writer receives $100. I remember sending in a couple as a child. The going rate then, which I never received, was $25.

Points to Ponder was familiar, it consists of excerpts published elsewhere that engender thought. Here’s one from Christian Tetzlaff, a violinist: “Music is humans’ most advanced achievement. Trying to turn lead into gold is nothing compared to taking something mechanical like an instrument—a string and a bow—and using it to evoke a human soul.”

It’s an interesting sentiment, but the last time I checked, nobody has been able to turn lead or anything else into gold. Meanwhile, quite a few songs have been written. In 2006, Google Answers estimated that 16 million songs have been written in the U.S. and 30 million more have been written in the rest of the world. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=720948 More recently (2011), some dude on Quora estimated the number of songs at over 623 million, with a new song written every two minutes. https://www.quora.com/How-many-songs-in-total-have-humans-created-that-we-can-listen-to I’m guessing the real answer is somewhere in between. Though not all songs “evoke a human soul,” certainly more do than there have been successful attempts to create gold.

There was a fun feature on which thing is germier: for example, food that has fallen on the floor or food that has fallen into a sink. Or having a cockroach on your food or a fly. Another article highlighted health hacks that work, for instance, some researchers in the Netherlands determined that wearing socks during sex improves it. There were a couple of medical features. There were random comments and advice. Did you know that 16 pennies laid end to end measures exactly a foot? Sink and fly are germier.

Naturally, there was the oldest and most faithful of all the old friends: Word Power. My memory suggests that this feature has not aged a day, still 15 words to define from among three multiple choice answers. I remember yearning for and never achieving a perfect score. Finally 40 years later, I went 15 for 15. And none of them were that hard. I’m no smarter, but I sure have absorbed a lot of words on my journey.

The biggest feature, and the longest title, in this issue was The Reader’s Digest Complete Guide to Witticisms Quips Retorts Rejoinders and Pithy Replies for Every Occasion. I have chosen three quotes from among many gems. British actor Shane Richie said, “I don’t believe in reincarnation, and I didn’t believe in it when I was a hamster.” The absurdly great Oscar Wilde said, “To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” The famous if seldom read Samuel Johnson said, “He is not only dull himself, he is the cause of dullness in others.”

The 144 page issue was chockerblock with articles and features. It was a fun read and I’m glad I went through the entire issue. I’m unlikely to subscribe because I usually look for slightly meatier stuff to read, but it sure was enjoyable taking a nostalgic tour through the pages of an icon. If you see a copy in your travels, flip through it and see what old friends you can find.

A few updates

Colin Kaepernick continues to kneel during the national anthem. He has reported that he has received death threats about his protest. Meanwhile, more unarmed black people have been shot and killed by police officers.

John Tortorella, the coach who believes he has the right to force players to stand during the national anthem, also believes that anyone critical of him should shut up. After the US was eliminated from the World Cup of Hockey, he referred to critics as self-serving. His criticism of them was, of course, perfectly appropriate, and not in the least self-serving. He’s big on saying what he wants to say, not so big on others having an opinion contrary to his.

The Cubs continue to play well and against bad teams. In their last 20 games, they are 12-8. Among those games were ten against the sad sack Brewers and Reds and four against the Giants, who have a winning record despite having the worst record in baseball since the all-star break.

John Stumpf remains on the job and today picked up support from a professor who called for us to stop beating up on poor Wells Fargo and John Stumpf. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/22/stop-beating-up-on-wells-fargo-and-john-stumpf-commentary.html He stated “This seems to be a rare case where Wells Fargo unintentionally dropped the ball.” Please Professor, Wells Fargo didn’t drop “the” ball, they dropped over 2,000,000 balls and it was very intentional. That’s a little worse than the hot potato footballs that players are dropping.

Speaking of which — a couple of you think my “ejected from the game and ball on the 50-yard line” proposal is a bit extreme. Of course it is, purposely so. It begets this philosophical question: can it be appropriate to have a penalty that is so severe, so grossly disproportionate to the infraction that no infractions occur.

One example of this is Singapore, where spitting gum on the street or sidewalk carries a $700 fine. The fine isn’t designed to discourage gum spitting, it is designed to eliminate it — and it works. The country does not have the splatters of gum that besmudge so many sidewalks in the US.

My “proposal” (quotes because no person in a position to do anything about it will ever become aware of it) is not designed to discourage dropping the ball before crossing the goal line, it is designed to eliminate it. If the NCAA or the NFL want to get serious about eliminating helmet to helmet hits or targeting, they should consider a grossly disproportionate penalty. In the meantime, we continue to see players get pummeled into concussions because the rules are designed to discourage helmet to helmet contact, not eliminate it.

One of my intrepid friends forwarded my post about Central Michigan forfeiting their win over Oklahoma State to the President of Central Michigan University. He has not responded. But a couple of you did, asking about the rule that should have ended the game. I thought it too complicated to include in the earlier post, but have a little room here, so:

The rules state that when a penalty occurs on the last play of a quarter, an additional untimed down will be played. Oklahoma State had the ball as the clock wound to zero and threw the ball out of bounds. The officials called intentional grounding. Whether that was a good call is irrelevant for our purposes. Because the last play of the quarter included a penalty, the officials allowed an untimed down. They forgot about another rule, which states that the previous rule does not apply if the penalty results in loss of down, which intentional grounding does. The bottom line is that the second rule canceled out the first rule, the game had concluded, and the additional untimed down should not have been allowed.

The President of Central Michigan can still score a public relations coup by forfeiting the game. It would generate so much positive press about the university’s integrity and sportsmanship that CMU would benefit more than it will from the win. The head football coach might beg to differ.

Last – Jerry Rice scored the most touchdowns in NFL history, 208. He also attempted 11 passes and completed three, including one touchdown.

Footballs: the new hot potato

Do the footballs used by college teams get heavier at the players approach the goal line? Hotter? Start emitting an electric shock? Become radioactive? I jest, of course. The real question is why do so many college football players intentionally drop the ball as soon as possible upon scoring or almost scoring a touchdown?

In November, 2014, a Utah player dropped the ball before crossing the end zone. An Oregon player picked it up and ran 100 yards for a touchdown. Video can be seen here: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/11845079/oregon-ducks-return-fumble-100-yards-utah-utes The fumble was upheld, and the Oregon touchdown counted.

On September 10, 2016, a Clemson player dropped the ball just before crossing the goal line. Video can be seen here: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/09/watch_clemson_player_drop_ball.html The play was ruled a touchback, and the opponent received the football.

Last weekend, an Oklahoma player returned a kickoff for a touchdown and dropped the ball just before he crossed the goal line. You can see the video here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oklahomas-joe-mixon-dropped-the-ball-before-crossing-the-goal-line-021231491.html The play was ruled a touchdown.

To be honest, watching live, I did not notice the early drop. But the broadcast team did, and they showed the replay, almost incredulous that the play was not reviewed. Then they said something that made me incredulous, and I paraphrase: even if they had overturned the touchdown, Oklahoma would have had possession at the one-yard line. That seemed inconceivable to me, but only for about three and a half hours. In the event, the touchdown counted, but it would have needed to be worth 27 points for Oklahoma to have defeated the Buckeyes.

Later that night, or early Sunday morning, if you prefer, the same thing happened again. Late in the game, while protecting a lead, a UC Berkeley player popped through the line on third and short and sprinted for the end zone. Video here: http://thebiglead.com/2016/09/18/video-cals-vic-enwere-drops-ball-before-crossing-goal-line/ He dropped the ball before crossing the goal line. A Texas player picked up the ball within 2-3 seconds. After review, Cal was awarded the ball at the one-yard line because the Texas player did not immediately recover the ball. I saw this play live at approximately 2:30 EST and was outraged by the ruling that Texas had not recovered the ball. It was borderline absurd.

It’s almost a joke to see just an ill-advised play happen so often. The players work too hard all week and during the games to so freely squander the opportunity to score for their team and their school. And yet they keep doing it and none of it is accidental. It is quite obvious in watching the videos that in each circumstance, the player voluntarily relinquished control of the football.

On the other extreme, Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith put every football he scored an NFL touchdown with in a bag so he could take it home. Every single touchdown-scoring football, that’s 175 footballs. Only one NFL player scored more touchdowns. http://a.espncdn.com/nfl/news/2002/1114/1460831.html Some of the footballs have been auctioned for charity, though most of them remain in boxes. https://passtheword.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/emmitt-smiths-money-ball/ None were dropped before Smith reached the goal line.

Cam Newton, the outstanding QB for the Carolina Panthers, hands every ball that he scores with to a child in the stands. http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/carolina-panthers-young-fans-cam-newton-ted-ginn-touchdown-ball-excitement-012416 Other Panthers do the same thing. The kids are understandably ecstatic. And the players do not drop the ball before reaching the goal line.

Keeping or giving away footballs would likely get college players in trouble with the NCAA, so I’m not advocating that. But the players should follow the lead of these NFL greats and not drop the ball before reaching the goal line. As an extra incentive, the NCAA Rules Committee could pass the following rule to take effect immediately: any player about to score an unimpeded touchdown, who voluntarily relinquished control of the ball before crossing the goal line, shall be ejected from the game and the opposing team shall take possession of the ball at the 50-yard line.

I suspect that coaches will stress the stupidity of wasting scoring opportunities so vehemently that the football-dropping epidemic will abate. I know it will if the rule I propose is enacted.