I have heard this question come up from time to time over the last 30 years but have never looked into the real issues involved. As a group assignment in my communications studies class we have to give a group speech on a topic. My group chose to discuss the topic of splitting California into at least two states, maybe three or four.

As I searched the Internet for a few resources, I am surprised by the history that I have discovered. The last state to split into 2 was Virginia/West Virginia over Virginia’s secession during the civil war. That was in 1862. As early as 1849, the year California was admitted to the Union, it was proposed to split California into two. Since that time there have been 25 other proposals. These ranged anywhere from splitting the state at the coastal ranges into Eastern and Western California, creating numerous small states not unlike the Greek city-states and the ever popular split of California into Northern and Southern California. The proposals have isolated the L.A. basin into its own state, split the state just below Sacramento or created 3 or four unique states. Advantages ranged from federal politics and representation of 1/8 of US population by 1/50th of the senators to the current concept of governing such a large economic power as one state rather than an independent nation. The later has the advantage of creating smaller more governable states without loss of California’s economy to the U.S. at large.

I tend to fall on the side of reason and discretion on this issue. There are valid points, however, they are talking points and not persuasive, at least to this add duck.

• Gato Class Submarine
• Keel laid: March 1, 1941 at Electric Boat Co., Groton, CT
• Launched: December 22, 1941
• Commissioned: April 11, 1942
• Displacement: 1,526 tons surfaced; 2,424 tons submerged
• Length: 311′ 9″
• Beam: 27′ 3″
• Operating depth: 300′
• Complement: 6 officers, 54 enlisted
• Armament: ten 21″ torpedo tubes, six forward, four aft, 24 torpedoes, one 3″/50 deck gun, two .50 cal. machine guns, two .30 cal. machine guns

After shakedown out of New London, Grunion sailed for the Pacific 24 May. A week later, as she transited the Caribbean for Panama, she rescued 16 survivors of USAT Jack, torpedoed by a German U-boat, and conducted a fruitless search for 13 other survivors presumed in the vicinity. Arriving at Coco Solo 3 June, Grunion deposited her ship load of survivors and continued to Pearl Harbor, arriving 20 June.

Departing Hawaii on June 30 after 10 days of intensive training, Grunion touched Midway, then headed toward the Aleutians for her first war patrol. Her first report,
made as she patrolled north of Kiska Island, stated she had been attacked by a Japanese destroyer and had fired at him with inconclusive results. She operated off Kiska throughout July and sank two enemy patrol boats while in search of enemy shipping. On July 30, the submarine reported intensive antisubmarine activity and she was ordered back to Dutch Harbor.

Grunion’ was never heard from nor seen again. Air searches off Kiska were fruitless; and on 5 October Grunion was reluctantly reported overdue from patrol and assumed lost with all hands. Captured Japanese records show no antisubmarine attacks in the Kiska area, and the fate of Grunion remains a mystery. Her name was struck from the Navy List 2 November 1942.

Grunion received one battle star for World War II service.

Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet

Patch(es) were obtained from:
NavSource Online (Submarine Photo Archive).
Originally contributed by Don McGrogan, BMCS, USN (ret.)

Today I’ve scheduled an appointment to give blood. This is the first time in what has to be more than 20 years. I have thought about it several times over the years, but convenience was always the barrier. I always get light-headed and pale as a ghost, but I know that’s going to happen and except for my pride it doesn’t bother me. My dad has always been an inspiration to me in this. Ever since I can remember he’s been giving as often as he can. Year after year, gallon after gallon. Thanks Dad!

I am in a communications study class right now and last night one of the student speeches was on giving blood. It reminded me that it’s time to stop making excuses and go ahead and do it. As it turns out, I really have no excuse. There is a donation center within a very short distance and it’s easy enough to arrange time off.

You know, it’s a funny thing. In the late 19th century I would have likely been in the camp that thought that giving blood would have moral implications. Wonder if that was an issue of the day or if it were just assumed to be morally acceptable?

Here’s a brief history of blood donations…

Although transfusions took place hundreds and thousands of years earlier it was hit and miss and the recipient was more likely to die – unless they simply drank it (like many did), in which case it was pretty useless.

1898 – Four different inherited blood types are identified: doctors discover these inherited differences in red cells can cause physical reactions in people when they receive blood from someone with a different type.

1913-1919 – To help soldiers wounded in World War I, doctors begin trying to devise ways to preserve and transport blood.

1939-1945 – During World War II, scientists add preservatives to liquid blood so it can be stored and transported: for the first time, transfusions area widely and safely possible.

1985-Present – As scientists identify more diseases that may be transmitted through blood transfusions, new testing requirements are introduced to detect viruses such as HIV, HCV, and WNV; and additional donor-eligibility restrictions are added to prevent blood donation by people who are at risk for certain diseases based on where in the world they have traveled or lived.

• Gato Class Submarine
• Keel laid: October 24, 1942, at Manitowoc Shipbuilding Co, Manitowoc, WI.
• Launched: May 9, 1943
• Commissioned: September 28, 1943
• Displacement: 1,526 tons surfaced; 2,424 tons submerged
• Length: 311′ 9″
• Beam: 27′ 3″
• Operating depth: 300′
• Complement: 6 officers, 54 enlisted
• Armament: ten 21″ torpedo tubes, six forward, four aft, 24 torpedoes, one 3″/50 deck gun, two .50 cal. machine guns, two .30 cal. machine guns

USS Robalo to the Pacific during the last part of 1943. Her first war patrol, during the first months of 1944, began at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. It produced no sinkings and terminated at Fremantle, Australia. Robalo left Fremantle in April 1944 to conduct her second patrol, this time targeting Japanese tanker traffic in the South China Sea. Her new Commanding Officer, Manning M. Kimmel, attacked several ships and was credited at the time with sinking one, though postwar review failed to confirm this. In return the submarine was near-missed by enemy bombs that damaged her periscopes. Repaired after returning to Fremantle, she left for another patrol in June, en route back to the South China Sea. On the night of 26 July 1944, while passing through the Balabac Strait, near Palawan, she apparently struck a mine and quickly sank. A few of her men swam ashore and were captured by the Japanese. However, either due to deliberate action by the enemy or through the hazards of war, none of Robalo’s crew survived to the end of the conflict.

On 2 August a note was dropped from the window of a cell of Puerto Princessa Prison Camp on Palawan Island in the Philippines. It was picked up by an American soldier who was on a work detail nearby. The note was in turn given to H. D. Hough, Yeoman Second Class, who was also a prisoner at the camp. On 4 August he contacted Trinidad Mendosa, wife of guerrilla leader Dr. Mendosa who furnished further information on the survivors.

From these sources it was concluded that Robalo was sunk on 26 July 1944, 2 miles off the western coast of Palawan Island from an explosion in the vicinity of her after battery, probably caused by an enemy mine. Only four men swam ashore, and made their way through the jungles to a small barrier northwest of the Puerto Princessa Camp, where Japanese Military Police captured them and jailed them for guerrilla activities. On 15 August, they were evacuated by a Japanese destroyer and never heard from again. Robalo was struck from the Navy list on 16 September 1944.

Robalo earned two battle stars for World War II service.

Naval Historical Center

Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet

Patch(es) were obtained from:
NavSource Online (Submarine Photo Archive).
Originally contributed by John Hummel

Irish construction worker finds 1,200-year-old book of psalms

The approximately 20-page book has been dated to the years 800-1000. Trinity College manuscripts expert Bernard Meehan said it was the first discovery of an Irish early medieval document in two centuries.
…
Crucially, he said, the bog owner covered up the book with damp soil. Had it been left exposed overnight, he said, “it could have dried out and just vanished, blown away.” USAToday.com Posted 7/25/2006 2:42 PM ET

It is incredible that a book so old in such a place could be preserved. I’m sure there’s scientific reason such as lack of oxygen while buried in the bog which caused 0 bacteria to live, etc., etc. But all the science aside – 1,200 years! Incredible! I’ll bet Bible scholars can’t wait to review this!

Why is it that when I get away from the city and out into the country that I somehow feel closer to God? Is this common or is it just my perception? What does it say about me?

This last weekend I went to an all-church summer conference at Lake Tahoe. This is an annual event for our church. The church doors shut and as much of the congregation as possible journeys up to Lake Tahoe for a Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday for a time of fellowship, worship and messages. Saturday night is always capped off with a talent show which includes everything from sidesplitting humor to very artistic endeavors. That aside, what is it about being close to nature that seems to make us more aware of the presence of God?

I enjoy backpacking (even though I haven’t gone for years) and this is one of my favorite aspects of the sport. There’s something clean and refreshing about getting away and sitting in the midst of nature away from the activity of humankind. Something that reminds me that there is more in the world than me; something that says “it’s not all about you”. I can sit under the starry night and feel the vastness of the universe and wonder at how anyone could avoid believing that there is a God. The more I contemplate nature and the heavens, the more I am aware that nothing would exist or could presently exist without God’s hand holding it all together.

I know that others feel the same way, but I wonder if this is universal or just the city boy in me yearning for something more than city life.

In this hot political topic, I have to say that I have my strong opinions. I cannot say they are based on anything more than a strong “gut feeling” of what’s right and what’s wrong. If I were to disagree with this research strictly based upon moral convictions, I would stand out on my own on other issues that to me are very similar in moral and ethical realms but considered acceptable by the majority of conservative individuals.

The reason I found the following article so enticing is that it presents a moderate viewpoint. I am of the opinion that those who refuse to debate rationally should bow of the debate as they will dissuade those that were in agreement with them. I am one of those thinking minds that reject arguments with no real basis. For example: I can agree with you, but not know exactly why. As soon as you use an irrational argument and start the mudslinging you’ve convinced me that your argument has a weak foundation and it’s time to seriously consider the other side of the issue.

Without further ado, let’s get into the article.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:14 p.m. EDT
Hard Cell

“President Bush cast the first veto of his 5 1/2-year presidency Wednesday, rejecting legislation to ease limits on federal funding for research on stem cells obtained from embryos,” reports the Associated Press. Congress is almost certain to sustain the veto, since the bill passed by 63-37 in the Senate and 238-194 in the House, respectively 4 and 52 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for an override. We must confess, we are ambivalent about this matter. We don’t have strong qualms about federal funding for this research, and we wouldn’t have a problem if the president signed it. We’re not terribly troubled by the idea of destroying human embryos (though we respect those who are), and we’re not qualified to evaluate the competing claims about the likely efficacy of embryonic vs. adult stem-cell research (the latter is uncontroversial).

On balance, we suppose we’re inclined to support the legislation. But the tone of the debate gives us second thoughts–in particular, this October 2004 quote from John Edwards:

“We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other debilitating diseases. . . . People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research.”

When people who claim to be speaking out for science talk like faith healers, they risk discrediting the entire enterprise. By contrast, President Bush’s approach to the question, as we noted five years ago, is nuanced and thoughtful.

Further, Bush’s foes and the press frequently misstate his position, referring to a “ban on stem-cell research.” In fact, the Bush policy places no restrictions on any kind of stem-cell research that does not receive federal money, or on federal funding of adult stem-cell research. It does limit federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research to those cell lines that were in existence at the time the policy was initiated, in August 2001, but prior to then there was no federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, so that the policy actually liberalized the conditions for federal research grants. Supporters of research subsidies are asking for a further liberalization, not a reversal of a “ban.”

We won’t pretend to be shocked, shocked that politicians are engaging in demagoguery and dishonesty. We’re cynical enough to realize that is what pols do when they think they have a winning issue, and that’s why we haven’t totally turned against the pro-funding position.

We do wonder, though, if this really is as winning an issue as Bush’s foes think it is. Of the five Republican senators generally considered vulnerable in November, only Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted “yes.” Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania all voted against the bill, as did Jon Kyl of Arizona and George Allen of Virginia, whom the most optimistic Democrats also think they have a chance of defeating. Only one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted “no,” and he also is up for re-election this year and is regarded as vulnerable.

It may be that these opponents are acting on principle, heedless of political considerations, or it may be that their vulnerability makes them more inclined to be responsive to their pro-life base, though even the latter explanation suggests the politics are somewhat complicated. And if the politics are complicated, it is because, as even the left-wing magazine Mother Jones acknowledges, the morality of destroying embryos is fraught:

Aanis Elspas is a mother of four. Unlike most parents, she had three of her children simultaneously. The nine-year-old triplets were born in 1997 after Elspas underwent a series of in vitro fertilization treatments for infertility. . . . The problem is that Elspas also has 14 embryos left over from the treatment that produced her 10-year-old. The embryos are stored in liquid nitrogen at a California frozen storage facility–she is not entirely sure where–while Elspas and her husband ponder what to do with them.

Give them away to another couple, to gestate and bear? Her own children’s full biological siblings–raised in a different family? Donate them to scientific research? Let them . . . finally . . . lapse? It is, she and her husband find, an intractable problem, one for which there is no satisfactory answer. So what they have done–thus far–is nothing. Nothing, that is, but agonize. . . .

Elspas is by no means alone, either in having frozen human embryos she and her husband must eventually figure out what to do with, or in the moral paralysis she feels, surveying the landscape of available choices.

Mother Jones, not surprisingly, quotes one expert who “believes that with better patient counseling and logistical coordination between fertility clinics and research labs, many more unused embryos could be directed toward stem cell research, and that many patients would be happy to know that their embryos are being used to find a cure for afflictions such as Parkinson’s disease and juvenile diabetes.”

That may be true, and many people (including this columnist) find it hard to credit the absolutist pro-life position that destroying an embryo is tantamount to killing a person. But Aanis Elspas’s anguish suggests also that one doesn’t have to be a pro-life absolutist to be troubled by the idea that human embryos are disposable.

My advice, when in doubt as to the ethical or moral issues take the conservative approach until these issues are ironed out. Better safe than sorry.

I’m not sure who sponsored this survey, but is it really a surprise to anyone? I’d sure like to get paid to tell people what they already know.

Once hailed as the pioneers of citizen journalism, Internet bloggers are, according to a new survey, mostly self-indulgent diarists interested in one topic above all others: themselves. Daily News & Analysis – July 20, 2006

The study’s authors said anonymity allowed bloggers to avoid the problem of “colliding life spheres” and to separate their offline lives from their online thoughts.

Again, is this any surprise? If I am going to talk about myself, my interests, my life wouldn’t it make sense to keep it anonymous to some extent? This anonymity works to frees the blogger a little. It allows for the removal of the masks we all wear so we can more closely express ourselves.

This last quote fits my sense of why I created this blog.

Despite the public nature of creating a blog, most bloggers see it as a personal pursuit, with 52 percent saying they do it for themselves rather than for an audience.

Voting turned into a game show. It’s not as much a matter of who won as who won $1,000,000. Arizona voters will have a matter put before them this fall in the “Arizona Voter Reward Act”.

Now tell me, does better voter turnout equate to a more representative government? Doesn’t government by elected officials imply that the electors voted for someone that will represent their interests? Doesn’t this require the electors to know something of those they are voting for? Doesn’t this also require the electors to be informed of the issues and how they are affected one way or the other? Tell me, will getting the masses to the polls get us a government that represents issues and solutions that are important to the majority; or will it ensure that the winner is the one that makes it the easiest for the normal non-voter to get their chance at a million dollars? Do we really want the masses to go to the polls with only one goal in mind, then make their secondary decision based upon the most recent political jingle or billboard?

I am all for encouraging voter turnout, but I am also all for encouraging informed voting. This ballot measure is geared to address one but could care less about the other issue.

Chances are good that many of them would pick candidates the same way they pick lottery numbers: either at random or based on some combination of misguided statistical wizardry and superstition. When you’re picking six numbers between 1 and 52, there’s really no such thing as an informed choice. The odds of winning are the same. “The Quick Pick Ballot” Chicago Tribune – July 18, 2006

Maybe our founding fathers had more sense than I have given them credit for when they set up the electoral college to prevent the “uneducated” masses from directly electing the president.

CBS raids the henhouse for latest promotion

CBS is enlisting eggs in its scramble to attract viewers.

The CBS logo and slogans promoting the TV network and its series will appear along with coded expiration dates on eggs sold by grocers — just another promotional measure in the competitive world of television.

More than 35 million eggs will be marked with phrases such as “CSI: Crack the Case on CBS” and “The Class, New Grade-A CBS Comedy” as part of a deal between the CBS Marketing Group and EggFusion, an egg-coding company. USATODAY.com – 7/17/2006

Doesn’t advertising already have us from cradle to grave? How many minutes old is a newborn before the professional photographers swoop in for the kill. They’ve even got their own room in the hospital!

We are an information society. This is very clear. I have to ask, “At what point are we so inundated with information – commercials, facts, events, etc. where our minds just shut down?” How much information can we process in a given day? I think it’s no coincidence that, as a society, we are far more reclusive, far less concerned about how the neighbor’s doing than we are about shutting it all out. As we culture are are saturated with information.

Kindergarten is not early enough, we’ve got to start pumping information in during pre-school. It’s that gotta-get-knowledge-to-keep-up mentality that has us filling our heads. But how much can we take before we just shutdown?

Hey, doesn’t “shutting down” look a lot like not making your own decisions but acquiescing to someone else who can process the facts? Vast conspiracy? Doubt it. Bad path for society? Think so.