Global Warming: Myth or Reality?

This is the first in a series of essays on global warming.

I have long maintained that there is not enough scientific data available yet to make a determination about whether carbon dioxide (CO2) is a significant greenhouse gas, and whether anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming actually exists. No one doubts that climate change is an ongoing natural cycle - warming and cooling trends come and go. The question is whether man-generated CO2 has had a significant effect on the natural cycle of climate change.

My major issues with the ongoing hype about global warming are:

• Much of the hoopla about global warming is based on the series of reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which thousands of notable engineers and scientists have allegedly endorsed. In fact, the first IPCC report was written by good engineers and scientists, but the Executive Summary was written by advocates - activists who drew incorrect, misleading, and occasionally opposite conclusions from those of the actual authors of the report. The situation was so egregious that some of the original authors resigned in protest and insisted that their names be removed from the report. The IPCC refused to remove their names. Then, a survey of the "thousands" of engineers and scientists who endorsed the report indicated that all but a hand-full had read only the Executive Summary. Their "endorsements" were based on the reasonable, but inaccurate, assumption that the Executive Summary accurately reflected the conclusions drawn in the body of the report. Those who “endorsed” the report had confidence in the competence of the original authors, and they were never made aware of the recantations of many of those authors.

• The “greenhouse effect” is a theory that certain gases in the atmosphere prevent excess energy (mostly light and heat) from being reflected back into space. That heat is therefore trapped and causes the earth's temperature to rise. Global warming advocates maintain that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas. But, CO2 is a tiny fraction of atmospheric gas – about 0.04 %, or 4 parts in 10,000. The two most abundant atmospheric gases are nitrogen and oxygen, which comprise about 95% - 99% of the atmosphere, depending on local humidity – neither of them are greenhouse gases. The next most abundant gas is water, in the form of water vapor (humidity), clouds, and fog – up to 4%, depending on the climate (desert, temperate, etc.), and water vapor reflects energy, so it would definitely be considered a greenhouse gas. If the greenhouse effect theory is correct, then it logically follows that water vapor, which is 100 times more prevalent than CO2, is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, CO2 would appear to be a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas.

• The most common evidence given for the correlation between CO2 and climate change is the much touted chart in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie that tracks both atmospheric CO2 and the earth’s temperature over time. The time scale is huge, usually about 600,000 years, so it is difficult to distinguish the CO2 curve from the temperature curve; but, Al Gore makes it clear in his movie that the two curves roughly parallel each other. His conclusion is that, since temperature changes track CO2 increases or decreases, then CO2 causes temperature change. The fallacy of this conclusion is easily shown by expanding the time scale at any point such that it becomes possible to clearly distinguish the two curves. When the two separate curves can be seen, it becomes evident that the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes, i.e., increases in CO2 happen years (usually hundreds) after the associated increases in temperature. Since cause obviously precedes effect, the CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of the temperature change, and in fact appears to be the effect. Therefore, the graph actually shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

This information begs several questions.

• Assuming the greenhouse theory is correct, isn’t it more likely that, compared to water vapor, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas?
• Don’t the data show that rises in atmospheric CO2 levels are the effect, rather than the cause, of rises in earth’s temperature?
• Is man-caused global warming really happening?
• Why is everyone so excited about CO2?

I reiterate that, to my knowledge, there is as yet insufficient data available to draw firm conclusions about man-caused global warming. Climate change happens over decades, centuries and millennia. Absent some phenomenal breakthrough in climatology, we probably will not know for certain in our lifetimes.

The answer to the underlying issue: “How did the possibility of global warming morph into a full-blown crisis?” is much more complex. Some of the primary considerations are politics in general, the politics of research, and media hype.

Research is all about money. It is very expensive, and someone must fund it. Follow the process:

1. The career success of scientific and engineering researchers depends on getting funding to do their research.
2. Nearly all of the available money comes from the government.
3. Politicians control government budgets.
4. Politicians react strongly to the sensational issues of the moment.
5. Researchers are quick to jump on the issues of the moment because that’s where the money is.

Here’s the subtle part. The money follows the crisis, not the science. If the research concludes there is no crisis, the money dries up. If it concludes either that there is a crisis or that there may be a crisis but more study is needed, then the money flows. Since researchers are rarely absolutely positive about their findings, they continually conclude that more research is needed, which fuels the crisis. Conversely, researchers that fail to add fuel will receive less research money and may be out of a job. Finally, political correctness has run so amuck in our Universities, that a significant number of professors who have questioned global warming have been denied or even lost tenure, and some have been censured, shunned, and even fired.

Politicians have jumped on the global warming issue and have helped to position it as a “crisis”, because nothing is more politically advantageous than a crisis. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Obama, has often been quoted as saying, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Politicians are even invading the purview of science and engineering. Al Gore is fond of saying, “The debate is over, and the issue is settled – global warming exists.” Yet no reputable scientist or engineer would ever make such a claim about a phenomenon that happens over millennia and about which we have relatively little data. This political hysteria is apparently bi-partisan, by the way. George Bush and John McCain, neither of whom knows an exponential from an erg, have both signed on.

Oh, let us not forget the media. Crises are of course manna to the press and the media. Blood sells. A sensational crisis attracts many readers/viewers, so the press/media never pass on an opportunity to deliver bad news.

But, why would academics be so enamored with global warming? Why has it become an issue of political correctness? The answer is unpalatable, to say the least. There is a very vocal element of our society, including much of liberal academia, that revels in American failure. Many of these folks fall in the “Blame America First” crowd. Among their favorite targets are capitalism, nationalism, and individualism, the foundations of American success. They believe that the answer is always in a larger, more powerful government, and that the ideal is a one world government. Task number one for them is to diminish America in favor of a “world view”. Their logic, therefore, is: America produces much CO2 , and, since CO2 causes global warming, America is bad, proof of the corruption of capitalism, nationalism, and individualism. Never mind whether CO2 actually causes global warming. Anyone who disagrees with them is politically incorrect. The Blame America First folks comprise a relatively small minority is the U.S., but they are very loud, and they seize on any crisis, real or perceived. Global warming is a perfect foil to generate the hysteria they thrive on.

The vast majority of Americans certainly do not fall into this definition of politically correct. Most Americans are good, hard working, loyal, and patriotic folks. Unfortunately, these good folks are often too busy earning a living and raising families to spend much time critically examining issues like global warming. Consequently, when the press and media are filled with global warming hype and then someone famous or powerful says “Global warming is no longer debatable – the question is settled”, they tend to fall in line (I suspect that Bush and McCain both succumbed to this process). The silent majority is typically too busy to find its voice – until recently, that is. The “Tea Party” crowd is the grass roots silent majority at its best, and, despite the best efforts of some politicians to trivialize them, the silent majority is finally being heard.

So, as an honest scientist and engineer, I don’t know whether anthropogenic climate change really exists, and I certainly don’t know whether our “carbon footprint” really is a significant issue. Both look doubtful to me at this time, but the jury will be out for generations.

Here’s what I do know. In the name of global warming: we are failing to drill for our own plentiful oil and gas; we are not building refineries to produce gasoline from crude oil; we are bankrupting ourselves by paying abusive oil prices to people who hate us and use our money to fund the terrorists who attack us; and, the government now requires us to burn food (ethanol) in our cars.

I agree with those who campaign for alternative energy sources – always a good idea, but not at the expense of everything else. Here’s a thought. How about simply collecting climate change data, a relatively inexpensive effort, and spending most of the enormous global warming research budget on developing practical alternative energy, starting with hydrogen fuel cells?

At this point, there is growing doubt in the scientific and engineering communities that global warming even exists, but there is little doubt that global warming hysteria is destroying us and our economy.

Bankrupting Our Grandchildren

Think about this.

Say you were offered enough money to provide work, heath care, and retirement funds for you and your family. Say there was also enough money to bail out many of your friends so they wouldn’t have to go bankrupt. And say this money was a long term loan collateralized by the future income of your children and grandchildren – you personally would not have to pay any of it back. And say this money was available to everyone else also. All of your lives would be more comfortable and secure. Oh, yeah, one more thing. The debt incurred would be so great that the economy would probably never recover, thereby guaranteeing that yours was the last generation ever to enjoy the American dream.

Would you take the money?

Well, you are taking the money, right now. And so am I. And we are both bankrupting our progeny, and changing America forever. How’s that for hope and change?

Friday Mornings at the Pentagon

Joe Galloway is the co-author, with Lt Gen Hal Moore, of "We Were Soldiers Once ... And Young", one of the very best war novels ever written. If you haven't read it, I highly commend it to you.

I don't know whether the ceremony described in this article still takes place. Perhaps someone who knows can post a comment. Joe wrote this piece back in 2006 - it's now more than three years later, and, to my knowledge, the mainstream press and media are still AWOL.

Friday Mornings at the Pentagon
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the! Army co rridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.

Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.

The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. "10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.
"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.

"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.

"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30... Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along.. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-ol! d husban d's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

"Did you know that?

The media haven't yet told the story."

Third Party Politics

The nation is rife with third party politics, mostly on the conservative side. The liberals continue to have the Green Party, Ralph Nader, and others, but the new kids on the block are folks who participate in events like the town hall meeting protests, 9.12 rallies, and tea parties. The Obama administration, the Democratic Party leadership, and the mainstream media, have branded these people “gun toting rednecks”, “angry mobs”, and even “domestic terrorists”. The same critics have claimed that these are not grass roots movements, but are in fact staged protests organized by the Republican Party. I’ve attended several of these events, and here’s what I found.

• The attendees were local folks, including many retirees, who were very upset at stuff the government or the congress was foisting on them.
• Virtually everyone I spoke to had never attended a protest before.
• The attendees came on their own, in cars, and were not paid or “organized” by anyone.
• In fact, the only evidence I saw of organizers were liberal counter-protesters who were bussed in by “community organizers” like ACORN and unions like SEIU, many of whom were on the payroll, and who carried commercially made signs.
• The protesters’ signs were obviously home made, and, since they were not organized or controlled in any way, some signs were disappointingly tactless and even offensive.
• The protesters’ voices were passionate, loud, and sometimes angry (people get cranky when they're upset), but there were absolutely no acts or even threats of violence, and there was no indication of “mob mentality”.
• The only gun I ever saw was the TV close-up shown repeatedly by the mainstream media as evidence of "gun toting" - alas, a different camera view showed the gun was actually carried by a black man who was a counter-protester.

There is little doubt this is indeed a grass roots movement by patriotic, freedom loving, salt of the earth, Americans, who have finally found their voice.

Now, let’s talk about protesting. Ever since the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, there have been liberal demonstrators protesting at virtually every significant political or economic gathering. The press, the media, liberals and conservatives alike (and certainly most veterans), have usually agreed that such folks were simply exercising their rights of free speech, and that’s part of what makes America great. Now, suddenly, because the protesters are opposed to the liberal agenda, they are called rabble, Nazis, anti-American, and other slurs, by their own congressmen and senators, and the Democratic Party leadership, including the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States. I think the liberals’ suspicions of a conspiracy may stem from the fact that they are accustomed to Republicans and Independents behaving in a more civil and dignified fashion. Bulletin for Washington: that’s what happens when you ignore folks, regardless of their political affiliation.

So, I think it’s great that these heretofore “silent majority” folks are finally making themselves heard, but where is this all going? Lately, Glenn Beck and some talk radio hosts have been talking a lot about an emerging third party, a tempting but potentially troublesome direction. First of all, does anyone remember who elected Bill Clinton, twice? Ross Perot, that’s who. Clinton never received a majority of the votes, and the 19% of the votes Perot got in 1992 and the 9% he got in 1996, were mostly from fiscal conservatives who would otherwise have voted for Republicans.

The same thing is happening this year in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. In July, Chris Christie, the Republican candidate, was 15 percentage points ahead of Jon Corzine, the Democrat. Then Chris Daggett, a fiscal conservative third party Independent candidate, entered the race. Now, a week before the election, Corzine’s numbers are essentially the same, Christie has lost about 15% and Daggett has gained about 15%. You do the math. If the Democrat is re-elected, the third party Independent, Daggett, will have elected him.

In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, an off-election year race was precipitated by President Obama’s appointment of Democrat Congressman McHugh as Secretary of the Army, and the third party candidate is winning. Although the polls still show 19% undecided, meaning anything could happen, Conservative Party candidate Hoffman is 5 points ahead of Democrat Owens, and 20 points ahead of Republican Scozzafava. Several Republican luminaries, including Sarah Palin, have endorsed Hoffman over the Republican candidate on the grounds that the Republican is insufficiently conservative. If Hoffman, the third party candidate, wins this race, it will not only be a victory for conservatives, but a significant defeat for Obama, who has actively stumped for Owens.

Proponents of a conservative third party hail mostly from the Republican right. They feel that the Republican Party, in an effort to woo independents, has moved too far left. More traditional Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, believe the party should be more inclusive and open, welcoming anyone who is supportive of basic Republican tenets like small government and minimal taxes, regardless of their specific positions on issues like abortion and gay rights.

By pushing his far left liberal agenda, President Obama may have ironically done more to encourage conservative third party politics than anyone. Obama’s political handlers were no doubt thrilled to see the emergence of a conservative third party, anticipating Ross Perot redux, but the irony may backfire. President Obama was elected by Independents who were dissatisfied with the Bush administration (Who wasn’t?). These Independents voted for Candidate Obama who ran as a unifying centrist, but they got President Obama, who actually turned out to be a divisive leftist. Many of these same Independents are also disaffected with the Republican Party, and may well be attracted by a potential breath of fresh air in the form of a new party.

A viable third party may emerge, but it cannot do so without splintering the conservative ranks. The shadow of Ross Perot looms large unless the third party can somehow morph into a home for a substantial number of centrists and/or liberals in addition to its core conservatives.

Marine Corps Video

This video will give you a taste of why we love the Corps so - makes me wish I was 17 so I could sign up again.

Decriminalize Street Drugs

Ok, my conservative friends, take a deep breath and think about this a little before you have apoplexy. My libertarian roots are sprouting, and I ask that you not stifle them too quickly. Give me a page or two to make my case. This is such a visceral topic that I am unlikely to change anyone’s mind, but it might be interesting for you to learn another viewpoint.

Before I get to the technical arguments, a little perspective might be in order. President Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and coined the phrase, “War on Drugs” in 1973. President Eisenhower had created a committee to stamp out narcotic street drugs 20 years before that, and “Reefer Madness” came out 20 years before that, during the Great Depression – all of which begs the question, “How’s it working?” Well, let’s see. We probably all agree that one of our greatest concerns regarding street drugs is their impact on kids. So how has the War on Drugs impacted kids’ use? Marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, and whatever the current craze is, are all readily available in High Schools and even Middle Schools; and, in poll after poll, kids indicate that it is much easier to get drugs than booze. If we check out adults, we find that the use varies greatly by how “hard” the drugs are, but the levels of use have remained relatively stable or grown a little for 30 years or so. By any measure, the War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure. It is lost, and perhaps it’s time for a new strategy.

Now, the engineer in me demands a few numbers.

• Depending on the prison, between 50% - 75% of the 2.3 million U.S. prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses.
• Since the cost of incarceration is roughly $22,000 per year per prisoner, U.S. taxpayers spend approximately $30,000,000,000 per year (that’s 30 billion dollars) to keep non-violent drug offenders in prison.
• Additionally, the cost of investigating, arresting and prosecuting each drug offender is about $50k, and, since there are approximately 500,000 drug convictions per year, that’s another $25,000,000,000 ($25 billion) out of the taxpayers pockets, not counting the cost of investigating and trying the ones who get off, or never get caught.

That’s a total of around $55,000,000,000 ($55 billion) per year we spend, to accomplish what? Apparently, declaring a War on Drugs is roughly equivalent to declaring war on ants and gnats. It may be a good idea, but no one really knows how to do it.

So, if we can’t win the war, what would happen if we just admit defeat? What would happen if we decriminalized drugs? Let’s see.

• Farmers could grow and companies could process and package the drugs at a fraction of the current street costs, a benefit to farmers and the creation of legal, taxpaying companies and jobs.
• Since the South American, Central American, Mexican, and Asian drug cartels could never compete, they would go out of business, at least in the U.S. – just like moonshine can’t compete with commercial liquor.
• Additionally, organized crime would lose its most profitable business.
• We could regulate the drugs like we do liquor and cigarettes, so the quality and strength of the drugs would be standardized, thus making them much safer.
• We could tax the sale of drugs, thereby generating a government income on what is now a huge financial drain.
• We could set very high penalties for selling drugs to minors (and do the same for booze and cigarettes, by the way).
• Even though adult possession would be decriminalized, juvenile possession could remain an offense, similar to the way possession of alcohol is now.
• Lastly, in addition to relieving the overcrowding, there are some other benefits to the prison sytems:
- since the prisons would be 2/3 empty, we could really concentrate on controlling the violent criminals and gangs that remain; and
- we could try creative ideas like having white collar criminals serve their time by working with addicts.

I know someone out there is screaming, “But the use of drugs would explode – there would be a national epidemic of addiction”. Really? Right now, any adult can get any drugs they want on the street, but only a small percentage do. Ask yourself if you would start using heroin or cocaine. I doubt it. Most adults understand the dangers inherent in drug addiction, and would avoid it, just as they do now. If we decriminalize street drugs, those that don’t currently use probably won’t use; and, those that do currently use, will continue to use. Ok, the use of marijuana would no doubt increase, probably with a commensurate decrease in alcohol consumption, the net effect of which would be the elimination of many hangovers.

We could begin a campaign stressing the negative impacts of hard drugs on your life – similar to the anti-smoking campaigns. It’s critical that we not revert to the hokey claims about marijuana leading to harder drugs (if marijuana leads to hard drugs because it is used first, then so do booze, cigarettes, soda, and even milk). We should stress the negative impacts of hard drugs on your career, earning capacity, family relationships, and health – it’s just stupid to use hard drugs.

Now, what about those empty jails and all that money we saved and the new tax money? Well, to begin, we could use it to fund rehabilitation centers and halfway houses. We could send addicts to rehab instead of sending them to the crime and gang schools that are our current prisons. We might even be able to use some to feed the hungry and house the homeless.

Presidents since Ford have convened blue ribbon panels to study this issue, and panel after panel has concluded that decriminalization is the most prudent solution. Even a conservative blue ribbon panel led by William F. Buckley reached a similar conclusion. So why haven’t Presidents listened? Simply because they’re petrified of the conservative backlash.

Look, the U.S. tried to criminalize liquor during prohibition. This was a War on Booze. During prohibition, those who drank before continued to drink, and those who did not drink before continued not to drink. The only differences were that the cost of booze sky-rocketed, we made criminals out of ordinary citizens just because they wanted a drink, and we created the largest crime syndicates in our history. The War on Drugs has been as great a failure as was the War on Booze.

But, all is not lost. We can’t win the War on Drugs, but we can come to grips with it, if we deal with the problem exactly the same way we dealt with the War on Booze.

A Fish Story

My wife, Ginny, and I are fortunate enough to spend our summers on a beautiful lake in New Hampshire. A while back, Ginny’s college roommate, Barb, came all the way from California with her family for a visit. They arrived late morning, and Barb and Ginny immediately started catching up, Barb’s three grown daughters headed for the beach, and Barb’s folks, who had also joined us, retired for a nap. But Barb’s husband, Tom, is a fisherman. His opening words were, “Hi, Joe. How’s the fishing here?” I set him up with a tackle box, a spinning rod, and a suggestion that the deadwood stump off the point would be a good place to start, and I left on an errand.

When he opened the tackle box, Tom, being a good fisherman, immediately spotted my “Sebago Special” lure. This is a curved piece of stainless steel with three treble hooks, one at the top, one in the middle, and one at the end, and it looks like sweet manna to big fish. In short order, Tom had caught a few nice bass, and he settled in for a great day of fishing.

An hour or so later, Tom hooked a corker of a pickerel. Well, pickerel are great fighters, and Tom was in fisherman Nirvana. When he finally landed the fish, he found that the pickerel was no where near ready to give up. It flipped and flopped into the blueberry bushes, tangled the line, and then flipped back onto the sand, and Tom spotted his chance to pin the monster down with his foot. It was a big pickerel, but no match for Tom’s 180 lbs, and Tom relished his moment of victory. He savored the view of that beautiful fish on the bottom hook, and the Sebago Special and its other two hooks gleaming in the sparkling sunlight.

As Tom reached down to unhook him, the pickerel burst into another thrashing fit, and the center hook snagged Tom’s sneaker. Oh, well, no one ever said fishing was easy, but a veteran fisherman handles such complications with ease. Tom wasn’t a bit flustered. Like a real pro, he grabbed the needle-nosed pliers, planning to unhook his sneaker, being very careful, of course, not to damage that amazing lure. But the pickerel was not done yet. Oh no! As Tom reached down, the powerful beast gave a mighty heave, slipped out from under the sneaker, wriggled his head, and flung the top hook into Tom’s thumb.

What a lure! My Sebago Special had simultaneously snagged a pickerel, an Adidas, and a Californian! The pickerel, of course, was even less happy than Tom with this development and continued to thrash about thus causing the other two hooks to sink even deeper. Tom, ever the intrepid fisherman, immediately recognized the seriousness of his predicament, and began to scream for help. The wives and daughters, meanwhile, were happily immersed in girl talk, and interpreted Tom’s painful supplication as a joyful outburst.

Thankfully, after a few minutes of continuous cries, Barb became suspicious, suspecting that even a really nice fish would not cause an outburst of that duration. By the time she and Ginny went to check on Tom, the situation had deteriorated into a fully developed calamity. The fish was flopping, the hooks were digging, and Tom was doubled over trying to pin down the thrasher. He screamed at Barb, “Cut something!” Well, eventually the girls rescued Tom, the sneaker, and the pickerel (who, by the way, probably still regales his fish friends about the time he caught the big Californian), but my amazing lure remained steadfastly imbedded in Tom’s thumb.

So, Ginny, Barb, and Barb’s dad, Charley, now delightedly awake, set out in Ginny’s jeep to rush Tom’s thumb to the ER. In route, Tom was torn between cursing Ginny for choosing the bumpiest road in North America, and begging her to hurry before he expired from pain. Charley, meanwhile, mildly amused by all the carryings on, passed the time browsing through the Book of Common Prayer he had found in the back seat (every good Episcopalian keeps a BCP close at hand). However, as the chaos around him increased, Charley, ever the sensitive father-in-law, began to ponder whether he should do his part to add to all the fun. Suddenly, Ginny hit a big bump, Tom screamed that she was killing him, and Charley brilliantly spotted the solution to everything. It was right there in front of him in the BCP. Charley seized the moment. He commiserated with Tom, and offered to salve his misery and ease his pending demise. Charley then sonorously began to read passages from the “Prayers at the Time of Death”. As Charley “prayed”, and Tom moaned, Ginny and Barb were laughing so hard they almost ran over two deer, a tractor, and a hay wagon.

It was only in hindsight that Tom fully appreciated the humor of that moment, but he swears that, even in the throes of disaster, he remained in awe of the Sebago Special.

And, that’s a true story, more or less.