Follow Us
Showing All Blog Posts
Friday, July 18th 2014
Stephanie Souders
Posted Fri Jul 18 2014 22:29
Like This?
Steph Reads Baened Books: Larry Correia's Monster Hunter Nemesis
Tom Weiss
Posted Fri Jul 18 2014 17:35
Like This?
Over at the Federalist, Mollie Hemingway has been doing some excellent work chronicling media ignorance, focusing on the left-wing writers at Vox.com. Jay Leno was fond of interviewing Californians on the street and asking them simple questions about national or foreign affairs while we laughed at their ignorance. It was all in good fun and I don't really care if a mechanic or a FedEx driver thinks there is a bridge connecting the Gaza Strip with the West Bank, but when a journalist not only thinks it but includes it in a piece purporting to explain the Israel-Gaza crisis, there's a problem.
I put college professors in the mechanic category. Each has their area of expertise. If a mechanic tells me my seventh Fetzer valve is sticking and to prepare it with some oil and gauze pads, I listen. If an English professor tells me my take on Chaucer is incorrect, I will defer to him or her. But I don't put much stock into what either of these people have to say about politics or foreign affairs unless they can prove some kind of expertise in the area.
For better or worse, however, most of us do put more stock in the opinion of the person with the "Dr." in front of his or her name. In turn, many of the people with "Dr." in front of their name think that title imbues them with a certain level of authority in areas that bear no relation to their field of study.
So it is with Mary Baine Campbell, Professor of English at Brandeis.
In April of this year, Brandeis revoked an invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was to receive an honorary degree. Ali is an award winning African American author, women's rights advocate, and athiest. None of these things were a problem - although it's funny that when conservatives criticize a black president, we're accused of racism but when liberals demonize a black female human rights advocate they're absolved of all such nefarious intentions.
The problem is Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a conservative who criticizes Islam.
According to Breitbart, Ms. Campbell wrote:
Houston, we have a problem...Ayaan Hirsi Ali claims to have had a difficult early life, and it may be true. However, she's an ignorant, ultra-right-wing extremist, abusively, shockingly vocal in her hatred for Muslim culture and Muslims, a purveyor of the dangerous and imaginary concept, born of European distaste for the influx of immigrants from its former colonies, 'Islamofascism' - which has died on the vine even of the new European right wing. To call her a 'woman's rights activist' is like calling Squeaky Fromm an environmentalist.
So much is wrong with these sentences I have to wonder how long Ms. Campbell has been suffocating in her epistemically closed campus cocoon.
Ms. Campbell says that Ali's "claims" about her difficult life "may be true." Too bad there's no way to verify female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, the brutal murder of a colleague or the death threats against her. Ms. Campbell thinks we're all just taking Ali's word for it.
She also uses the word "ignorant" to describe Ali, which is curious. Ali was raised Muslim, accepted the faith and identified as Muslim for 20 years. If anything I would say that makes her an authority on the religion, not ignorant of it. And if, as an authority on Islam, Ali is "shockingly vocal in her hatred", shouldn't that cause Ms. Campbell to wonder why?
Apparently not, because Ali is a "purveyor" of "Islmofascism" although I can find no statements from Ali using that word. She has called it "the new fascism", but again this comes not from an ignorance of her subject but from 20 years of experience with it. Besides, something tells me that if Ali had grown up Catholic and were now criticizing the Pope instead of Islam Ms. Campbell and Brandeis would have welcomed her with open arms.
Finallly, Ms. Campbell's last sentence compares Ali to Squeaky Fromm, a member of the Manson family who attempted to assassinate President Ford. It is almost beyond belief that Ms. Campbell can, in all apparent seriousness, equate a violent criminal with a peaceful activist fighting to prevent violence against women.
I'm eternally fascinated with the American Left's love affair with Islam, especially given it's ambivalence if not outright hostility towards Christians in this country. I don't care if a Christian can't visit Mecca or women can't drive a car in Saudi Arabia or if a woman has to breastfeed a man she isn't related to in order to work alongside him in an office (Google the last subject, it's fascinating). But I can insist they not forcibly impose their views on others who don't share their faith, and I can make my own value judgement about the type of society that not only allows but encourages this way of thinking.
Ms. Campbell can't bring herself to make that value judgement, or more precisely she has to downplay the widespread discrimination and violence against women in the Muslim world so that she can claim to be "tolerant."Had Ayaan Hirsi Ali received an honorary degree from Brandeis, Ms. Campbell may have been forced to address these issues, and she doesn't want to do that.
For those interested in a more balanced take on the Ali-Brandeis row, here is a good column. I don't agree with the conclusions, but at least it gives Ali a fair shake.
In the meantime, maybe I should start talking to my mechanic about politics and foreign affairs. Something tells me he couldn't do a worse job than Mary Baine Campbell.
Wednesday, July 16th 2014
Aaron Smith
Liberals have successfully used lawfare to halt California's death penalty and we must erspond
Posted Wed Jul 16 2014 20:02
Like This?
So California's death penalty is unconstitutional, according to a federal judge.
The reasoning behind this ruling is that the process is slow and inconsistently applies. The reason for this is, of course, every time we try to kill a killer, lawsuits get filed.
So essentially, the liberal legal equivalent of guerrilla fighters get there way simply by trying to get their way. They are like the man who killed his parents and then plead for mercy as orphans. Of course, in their world, that man would never face the death penalty.
What are we to learn from this?
Lawfare is effective. If you make a policy so damned expensive and time consuming, the other side may very well blink. Conservatives need to adopt this strategy.
I think we have, in some part, seen it with the Hobby Lobby and other pending Obamacare cases. In California, we also see strategic litigation being used to attack Jerry Brown's bullet train boondoggle.
However, the possibility for real havoc is out there. In California, we lost the Proposition 8 traditional marriage fight because our elected leaders went on strike and refused to obey the law.
Why not the same thing for conservative states, where conservative groups file suit against regulations we don't like and Republican officeholders surrender.
It works on the Federal level as well. Obama refused to defend DOMA? Okay. Let's have some group sue to shut down the Department of Education or the EPA once we get a Republican in the White House.
The reasoning behind this ruling is that the process is slow and inconsistently applies. The reason for this is, of course, every time we try to kill a killer, lawsuits get filed.
So essentially, the liberal legal equivalent of guerrilla fighters get there way simply by trying to get their way. They are like the man who killed his parents and then plead for mercy as orphans. Of course, in their world, that man would never face the death penalty.
What are we to learn from this?
Lawfare is effective. If you make a policy so damned expensive and time consuming, the other side may very well blink. Conservatives need to adopt this strategy.
I think we have, in some part, seen it with the Hobby Lobby and other pending Obamacare cases. In California, we also see strategic litigation being used to attack Jerry Brown's bullet train boondoggle.
However, the possibility for real havoc is out there. In California, we lost the Proposition 8 traditional marriage fight because our elected leaders went on strike and refused to obey the law.
Why not the same thing for conservative states, where conservative groups file suit against regulations we don't like and Republican officeholders surrender.
It works on the Federal level as well. Obama refused to defend DOMA? Okay. Let's have some group sue to shut down the Department of Education or the EPA once we get a Republican in the White House.
Of course, getting a Republican in the White House requires having someone with the actual stones to go along with a project like that. Seeing as how Chicago-style has been working for the Democrats, if the GOP remains committed to the Mayberry rules, it's all over.
The Democrats have been successful in their cultural revolution. We need to steal their tactics if we want the counter-revolution to take hold.
Monday, July 14th 2014
A.G. Wallace
For the Greeks, Hell was a place called Tartarus, and its three most famous inhabitants were Sisyphus, Ixion, and Tantalus.
Posted Mon Jul 14 2014 00:46
Like This?
For the Greeks, Hell was a place called Tartarus, and its three most famous inhabitants were Sisyphus, endlessly pushing his rock up the hill, Ixion, strapped to a wheel for eternity, and Tantalus, forever unable to quench his thirst. For ancient Norsemen, the great abyss that formed the boundary of the ocean and the world, Ginnungagap, was derived from Tartarus and Chaos. Europeans whose lands bordered the mighty Ottoman Empire appropriated the word and used it to demonize their enemies, "The Monstrous Tartar."
Aeschylus, Virgil, Aristophanes, and Homer before them, wrote eloquently about hell. InPrometheus Bound, Aeschylus writes, "Oh if only he had hurled me below the earth, yes beneath Hades, the entertainer of the dead, into impassable Tartarus, and had ruthlessly fastened me in fetters no hand can loose, so that neither god nor any other might have gloated over this agony I feel!"
InBirds, Aristophanes says, "At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence."
In the Iliad, Homer writes of the saffron-robed dawn, and Zeus threatening to hurl into Tartarus anyone who dares oppose him.
Now Dawn the saffron-robed was spreading over the face of all the earth, and Zeus that hurleth the thunderbolt made a gathering of the gods upon the topmost peak of many-ridged Olympus, and himself addressed their gathering; and all the gods gave ear: "Hearken unto me, all ye gods and goddesses, that I may speak what the heart in my breast biddeth me. Let not any goddess nor yet any god essay this thing, to thwart my word, but do ye all alike assent thereto, that with all speed I may bring these deeds to pass. Whomsoever I shall mark minded apart from the gods to go and bear aid either to Trojans or Danaans, smitten in no seemly wise shall he come back to Olympus, or I shall take and hurl him into murky Tartarus, far, far away, where is the deepest gulf beneath the earth, the gates whereof are of iron and the threshold of bronze, as far beneath Hades as heaven is above earth: then shall ye know how far the mightiest am I of all gods."
Saxo Grammaticus, a Danish historian of the 13th century, wrote of Tartarus in The Danish History, saying that the vanquished King Harald would "outstrip those who shared his death in their journey to Tartarus." The king who slew him, Ring, prayed that "Pluto, the lord of Orcus, [would] grant a calm abode there for friend and foe."
Grammaticus also told of an expedition to a land of the dead by an Icelander named Thorkillus. Somewhere between the Ural Mountains and the White Sea, this place was known as Gandvik in the Norse, derived from a word meaning "magic."
Icelanders used to tell incredible stories of enormous riches piled up there, but the way to this place was full of dangers and almost inaccessible to mortals. According to the experts of this route, one had to cross the Ocean that surrounds the Earth, leaving Sun and stars behind, traveling to the kingdom of chaos and finally moving into places without light, shrouded in perpetual darkness.
Thorkillus traveled to the place of the dead described by ancient Icelanders, somewhere between the Ural Mountains and the White Sea.
For those Europeans who suffered the geographical misfortune of living along the warpath of Ottoman Sultans, nothing but the most extreme depiction of their enemies would do.
The image above, from the British Museum, explains that Tartars were monsters, no doubt from the pit of hell. The word was first used in this sense in the 13th century, referring to the hordes of Ghengis Khan. "... from Medieval Latin Tartarus, from Persian Tatar, first used 13c. in reference to the hordes of Ghengis Khan (1202-1227), said to be ultimately from Tata, a name of the Mongols for themselves. Form in European languages probably influenced by Latin Tartarus 'hell.'"
The Online Etymology Dictionary also says that a phrase from the 1660s -- "to catch a Tartar" -- means "get hold of what cannot be controlled."
My own purposes for the wordTartarusare more mundane. It only appears once, in what is now Chapter 7 of my novel. Mina and her protector Sa'd, are shopping in Galata for a map of Anatolia. Naturally, they visit the map-maker.
It looked like a bomb had exploded inside. Scrolls, paper, books, twine and dust lay everywhere, on tables and shelves in the front of the store, and Mina could only imagine what might be seen behind the heavy curtain at the back.
"What do you need?" Shouted theowner. "I have it!" He scuttled out from behind the curtain, a small man covered with an apron and bearing a most delicate knife.
"A map of the empire from here to the Caspian Sea," Sa'd replied.
"Should that include the regions toward Egypt, or the other direction toward the Tsar and his beastly hordes?"
"The beastly hordes." To Mina, he said, grinning, "You knew there would be beastly hordes, right?"
"Yes, I suppose so. Are they as bad as they sound?"
"Worse!" said the proprietor. "Their knives are a thousand times the size of this." He raised the sharp little knife and slashed the air dramatically. "But I use mine to greater effect. I can slice the world in half, while they are limited to slaughtering a few hundred men a day. Where are you going? As far as Astrakhan? Up the Volga River? Even to Tartarus, the furthest limits of the earth and sea?"
"Not as far as that, cartographer." Sa'd smiled, clearly enjoying the man's histrionics. "Just the Caspian. A merchant's route, if you have one."
I've done a fair bit of research on ancient maps, but I don't know what kind travelers might have actually carried with them. In my mind, Mina acquires something simpler than the map of Natolia produced by Joan Blaeu in 1635, seen below, and Tartarus is (of course) not depicted.
"The Atlas Maior or Great Atlas was produced by Joan Blaeu (1596-1673) between 1660 and 1663. It was with no doubt one of the most expensive cartographical productions of the 17th century. It contained 600 maps and 3000 pages with text in Latin. Later editions appeared also with French or German text." From theFacsimile Edition of the Atlas Blaeu.
Sunday, July 13th 2014
Posted Sun Jul 13 2014 23:34
Like This?
In which I discuss a series for younger readers:
E.J. Dionne gives up the game and defines liberalism
Posted Sun Jul 13 2014 22:51
Like This?
We need to call 911. E.J. Dionne just had a column that mentioned Glenn Beck and Christians with a minimum of sneering. I believe his head must have exploded
Aside from creating a situation which calls for all of Barack's horses and all of Barack's men to see if they can put poor E.J. Dionne together again, Mr. Dionne gives us a money quote that defines the liberal philosophy:
The back story is about the anti-trafficking laws that comes up in yet another round of "It's Bush's fault" when confronting a failure of the Obama administration. Mr. Dionne does not point out that the explosion of unaccompanied minors came not after Bush signed a re-authorization of a Clinton-era law but two years after Obama decided to re-write the law all by his lonesome.
So here we are with thousands of kids flooding the border and Mr. Dionne says that the policy that created a situation where children are being transported through incredibly dangerous conditions, overloading our infrastructure cannot be changed because the authors' hearts were in the right place.
Can we ask for a better definition of liberalism?
Conservatives have long pointed out that liberals ignore economic incentives and second order effects.
Mr. Dionne proves we are too generous. Liberals just don't care about second order effects. Consequences are not an afterthought, they are not given thought.
Kids die in the desert, maybe after the coyotes decide to play with them? Who cares?
American schools and social services crash under the weight of a world trying to escape the failed choices of their collapsing governments? Who cares?
Diseases once thought historical footnotes now immigrating here and infecting people that Americans just wouldn't do? Who cares?
E.J. Dionne feels good. That is the definition of a policy success in his world. And that folks is why we are in a culture war and why the term culture war has to be taken out of the context of social issues. It is the entire question of what culture we have: freedom versus socialism.
We cannot reason with people who hold no particular regard for reason. We can only win.
Friday, July 11th 2014
Posted Fri Jul 11 2014 17:03
Like This?
I've never been much of a basketball fan. I started playing hockey at the age of four or five, and that's really the only winter sport in Wisconsin or Minnesota. I played basketball for just one year, in eight grade. I did so for two reasons, the Catholic school I attended needed another player and at that age I was already over six feet tall and growing.
I don't watch college basketball. Unless cajoled I never fill out a March Madness bracket. And I only watch the NBA playoffs if San Antonio is doing well - their support of the Wounded Warriors at Brooke Army Medical Center in Fort Sam Houston was, during my time there, incredible.
For this reason I watched them crush the Miami Heat during this year's NBA Finals, during the course of which I heard much speculation about where LeBron James might be playing next season. Today, he decided to return home to Cleveland.
His decision to move to Miami four years ago caused quite the media circus. This time, he announced his return rather stealthily, in a column for Sports Illustrated.
This is a feel good story on a number of levels, but that's not what interested me about his column. What I found fascinating was his penultimate paragraph:
"In Northeast Ohio, nothing is given. Everything is earned. You work for what you have."
I do not believe LeBron was attempting to make a political argument with these sentences. I believe they are reflective of the nature of competitive sports, which in turn is inherently libertarian/conservative. There are a set of rules which generally do not change (I'll give the NFL a metaphorical pass here) and create equal opportunity for teams to succeed but do not guarantee an equal outcome.
One can argue that salary caps have the effect of encouraging parity, but sports are inherently capitalistic enterprises. Quality and innovation are paramount. Think of the triangle offense in basketball or the West Coast offense in Football.
The NFL doesn't spot the Minnesota Vikings seven points in every game they play because they've lost four Superbowls. That wouldn't be fair, would it?
What's interesting to me about LeBron's column is that if he were talking about politics or public policy, instead of basketball, he'd be immediately attacked by the left. How dare he say something like that... income inequality and racism and conservative policies are keeping people poor, it has nothing to do with hard work...he's making the Bill Cosby argument, and we've already discredited that.
But this, apparently, is just basketball.
Thursday, July 10th 2014
Posted Thu Jul 10 2014 22:35
Like This?
Surfing the Human Wave: D. Jason Fleming's Spring That Never Came
And by the way, a notice to all authors: If you would like me to write a review for one of your books, please drop me a line. I promise I'll be fair!
Christine Sunderland
Posted Thu Jul 10 2014 19:32
Like This?
As I watched the children running through the grass, clutching strings tied to red and blue and white balloons, I was thankful once again to be an American, to live in this land of the free. The burgers were grilling, the buns waiting to be slathered with mustard and catsup. Folks mingled and chatted, then scooted onto wooden picnic benches. It was our annual church picnic, enjoyed this year on Fourth of July weekend.
And so far, the last I heard, we are still the land of the free. As I watched the children, I thought as I often do, how law protects us, allowing these children to run with such abandon and joy. I then recalled a few lines from the movieA Man for All Seasons, where Sir Thomas More challenges the thinking of his son-in-law Will Roper:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast- man's laws, not God's- and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Our national Independence Day is a time to reflect on who we are as Americans, the stuff we are made of, the values for which we fight, suffer, and die. And while freedom from tyranny comes to mind, considering how our fledgling family of thirteen colonies protested British taxation, I usually return to the principle of law and order, something we happily inherited from British common law.
We have inherited a great deal from Britain in spite of our young rebellion over two hundred years ago: language, literature, philosophy and religion; traditions, secular and sacred; the desire for monarchy as seen in our icons, political and cultural; freedom of speech, especially in the media, freedom of thought and belief; the rights of property and families and individuals.
On July 4, 1776, in the "unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" we held certain truths to be self-evident: that all men were created equal, that God has given them the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments derive their power from the people, from the consent of the governed. And so to guarantee these truths, to protect the great heritage we received from Britain, and to thus ensure a peaceful democracy, the young union of States constituted a body of law.
Our nation would have not survived, will not survive, without the rule of law. Without laws, we, like young Roper, would have no protection from tyranny in all its forms, in all areas of our national life.
But changing the law is a tedious process. Perhaps this is wise, helping to ensure good laws. But we are a nation of do-ers, and we become impatient. We march with banners and placards year after year before the White House or the Supreme Court or Capitol Hill to challenge a 1973 law considered immoral and deadly not only to the individual and the unborn, but to our cultural climate as well. Killing the innocent, some of us cry, begets more killing of the innocent.Pleasechange this law, we say with our signs and heartfelt tears.
We look to government to lead us and to govern with our consent. We demand they too be law abiding, knowing that if our governors are corrupt, so will be their governing. We demand of them what the law demands of us.
Internationally we are the saviors of the world. Immigrants throng to and over our borders, determined to touch and taste America, scrabbling over fences, tunneling under boundaries. Confident in America's salvation, they give away their children, hoping they will have will have a better life, a peaceful life, or simply life itself. They are desperate, for they see us and other Western nations, as we truly are, the bearers of law and order, the protectors of freedom, the guarantors of peace.
And yet, they too must realize somewhere deep within that to break the law is to break America. To loosen and lessen, bend and broaden without the consent of the people is to invite disorder. And disorder leads to anarchy which demands, even welcomes, the bully, the tyrant, the one who promises to restore order, at a price. In America, these immigrants know as do we, that cutting ahead in line is unfair, simply wrong. And Americans are fair; they desire to right the wrongs.
So this year, this Fourth of July, 2014, I am thankful our nation is still undivided and that we still form a more perfect union, even if imperfect. I am thankful that our separation of powers (Congress, Courts, Presidency) though threatened, may right itself in the future. I am thankful that outrage may still be penned, if penned respectfully (with due regard to libel and slander), that the press's freedoms are not always misused, that debate and dissent still breathes (although barely) in our land. I am especially thankful for the courageous men and women who fight for us, for our freedoms.
I am glad that God is not dead as has been pronounced, and that respect for all beliefs is honored if not always practiced.
I'm glad, too, that I for one do not take America for granted. I see her as exceptional, enlightened, and great. The rest of the world sees her this way, as a shining light that will not go out, a beacon on a hill. She may not be perfect, but she values life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She rules with the consent of her people, a nation of rules that protects dissent as well.
And now as I write, I see in my mind (and my heart) the children running freely through the grass, their colorful balloons flying high.
Happy Birthday, America.
David Churchill Barrow
One answer: Encourage your teenager to join a gang.
Posted Thu Jul 10 2014 08:31
1 of 1 liked this
Imagine for a moment that out of a desire to belong (the strongest of teenage drives) your kid joins a gang - one that proudly wears its "colors" openly around the school with impunity. Only this gang has an unusual initiation oath:
"...I will always conduct myself to bring credit to my family, country, school, and(name of gang). I am loyal and patriotic. I am the future of the United States of America. I do not lie, cheat or steal and will always be accountable for my actions and deeds. I will always practice good citizenship and patriotism. I will work hard to improve my mind and strengthen my body. I will seek the mantle of leadership and stand prepared to uphold the Constitution and the American way of life. May God grant me the strength to always live by this creed."
This is no fantasy, and can become a reality in every high school in the country if we demand it, for that oath begins with "I am a Junior ROTC Cadet."
Chances are that on the first day of a JROTC class a retired officer (assisted by a retired NCO) will say something along these lines: "Play it straight with me and you can come to me with any problem; in school, at home, doesn't matter. We'll work it out together." The textbooks are a far cry from the revisionist, collectivist, politically correct vomitus too often found in schoolbooks. The following are actual chapters from the Army version: Becoming a Model American Citizen: Making the Right Choices; Winning Colors: Excellence is Not an Accident; Working Out Conflicts: You can be a Leader; The Constitution; and We Are Americans. Among the topics covered are the rights, responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; career opportunities (civilian and military); goal setting; consumer and budgeting skills; communication; learning styles; self-knowledge; fitness; first aid and health; map reading; Constitutional law; allegiance; and respect for duly constituted authority. No single high school class could get anywhere near as far towards preparing young people for a productive, satisfying adult life.
Why would the kid want to join? Because it's FUN. There's role-playing a plenty of sports and games. Your kid not the athletic type? No worries. While there is competition, the main emphasis is on cooperation and teamwork. Attitude counts more than prowess. There's rifle team, drill team, color guard and Raiders (cadet challenge). This last was our kids' favorite. It is a competition in calisthenics, obstacle course, land navigation, rope bridge (building and crossing) and first aid. A combination of the best leaders and the best followers usually carries the day.
If JROTC really gets into a kid's blood, there is summer camp. Here they live "the life:" Reveille, mess hall, taps, and a full day in between. There's marksmanship, tower rappelling, obstacle courses, science classes, and "Leadership Reaction Training." LRT is even fun to watch. A scenario is given - for example, there are two dirt ramps with a gap representing a raging flood. There are various boards and a hundred pound barrel. The team, with a leader they preselected, has 15 minutes to get the barrel, the boards and themselves across. Naturally the boards are too short. Utilizing the unique characteristics of each team member is counted in their favor.
We had two daughters and a son go through JROTC. Only the oldest daughter went on to a military career (JROTC + valedictorian = West Point) but our son's and our younger daughter's lives were deeply enriched by the program. I promise you this: When you hear "HOOAHH!"(Army), HOOYAHH! (Navy) or "OORAHHH!" (Marine Corps) echo across a parade ground with your son or daughter out there, you''ll be proud, perhaps to the point of tears, and your faith in the future restored.
(Note: The above was adapted from a column I wrote for the Tampa Tribune many years ago.)