Foolish Questions

I loved the old country music song titled Foolish Questions. It referenced situations as when a person rushes into the house, literally dripping wet and someone asks "Is it raining?".

At the August debate for Republican presidential candidates, TV host Bret Baier asked candidates to raise their hand if they would reject a Democrat proposal to offer $10 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. What a foolish question. Given the track record of Congressional Democrats, the $1 in tax would be taken - the $10 in spending cuts never given. How would you answer such a question?

But, I heard of a worse question: A group was asked to raise their hands if they believe in evolution. In both instances, the question was posed for a "gesture" answer... no explanations requested... no clarifications permitted.

Any sane person would have to answer yes, that they believe in "evolution". We all know that cross breeding and adaptations caused by climate, food or other influences, have caused a species of animal or plant to evolve into some different form. Consider the old "wolf to chihuahua" example. Or, how about the many kinds of roses developed by cross pollination (even patented).

However, the word "evolution" in modern conversation almost always refers to the origin of man. No one can
absolutely answer that question. Many learned people have sought the answer to the origin of man. Many others have speculated. Historic prophets have advanced "truths", sometimes mutually exclusive truths, but each with legends of believers.

Across America there are frequent confrontations between people who want schools to teach one or another explanation for the origin of  man. How can you teach anything when it is impossible to know the answer? But some persist, as if it would truly affect the life of a fifth grader to know what happened thousands or perhaps millions of years ago.

It would be very nice if we could just teach the truth, or at minimum, common sense: "We really cannot explain the origins of man but there are several possibilities. Why don't you discuss it with your parents?" Immediately that would enrage people of all beliefs  - who hold their personal belief to be inviolate. Better to ask foolish (unanswerable) questions. 

Clarification please.

I have always been a little perplexed as to why we show such deference to the President of the United States.


The person is not a king (or queen) or God. They are a politician, in the office because of a skilled and perhaps devious campaign and the donations of hundreds of millions of dollars from people who hope to rake in millions more in political favors; and from people who (often mistakenly) just admire them. They enjoy unimaginable perks and immense powers, and  (in modern times) always become multi-millionaires from their time in office.

But we are always expected to say "Mr. President"! When Barack Obama stood before Congress and told a bald-faced lie, Congressman Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie". Wilson was chastised for that retort, and forced to apologize, even though he was correct - Obama was lying. No punishment for - no apology from the liar.

While I fault the British for their adoration of their royalty, I believe their conduct in Parliament is much more realistic! If their PM makes a statement perceived to be false, a chorus of members voice their feelings.


While I was not a fan of Harry Truman, he was, at least, realistic about the Oval Office job. When he left office, he was offered one or more high salary jobs, which he refused. Harry said, "You don't want me. You want the office of the president and that is not for sale." Harry never became rich.

Fifteen different men have held the office of president in my lifetime. Some have led wisely with great benefit to my country. I appreciate and applaud them. Others have been lousy leaders and have inflicted harm on our nation and our people. I have no regard, no respect for them.

So, until I am persuaded otherwise, I shall continue to regard Barack Obama for what he is doing with his time in office. I think he is a bum... a great detriment to America. I do not wish him any physical harm, I just want him (and all of his cronies) out of office, out of power and influence.

The Big Picture

When I was studying broadcast electronics in my youth, I once encountered an exam question that asked for the probable cause of a malfunction in a described electrical circuit. I looked at the circuit, quickly identified a possible cause and wrote it as my answer.

When the exam was graded, I had answered every question correctly except that one about the malfunction. Disappointed at missing a perfect score, and certain my answer was correct, I challenged the examiner. He advised I reexamine the circuit for a more likely cause of the malfunction... the probable cause, which the question had sought. He was right, of course, there was a much more likely cause for the problem.

I never forgot that experience and through the decades since, have tried to look for The Big Picture. I haven't always succeeded, but frequently enough to know that first impressions are not always correct. How I wish everyone would discover that truth.

Environmentalists are, in my opinion, the worst offenders. They zero in on one conclusion and refuse to accept that they may be causing greater problems than the one they wish to solve. The most horrible example, of course, was Rachel Carson's attack on the pesticide DDT. Based on the belief that DDT would wipe out all bird populations, Carson's book Silent Spring sparked a movement that created a worldwide ban on DDT.

Carson and her adherents truly missed The Big Picture. DDT had almost eliminated the anopheles mosquito, which spreads malaria. Discontinuing the use of DDT allowed this mosquito to flourish and malaria to spread. The British newspaper, The Daily Mail, published this graphic to show the human price paid to satisfy the environmentalists posit that DDT must be banned:

Today, in political rhetoric, in discussions of the economy, in just about every phase of public discourse, we see examples of a refusal to look at The Big Picture. Even when results are indisputable, some still believe their original, narrow view was correct.

Each time someone makes an assertion about anything and asks for your concurrence, pause and look for The Big Picture. In so doing, you could be making a huge contribution to the general welfare.