My Review of 70-in Northern Sienna Ceiling Fan with Light

Originally submitted at CPO Hunter Fan

70-in Northern Sienna Ceiling Fan with light – HR28672. Light Fixture

Great fan for a large room

By StephenOM from Ocala, FL on 1/25/2012

 

4out of 5

Pros: Attractive Design, Quiet, Moves a lot of air, Easy Installation

Cons: Instructions unclear

Best Uses: Warm Climates, Large Rooms

Describe Yourself: Homeowner

The fan installation is pretty straight forward. The instruction are pretty clear except for the reference to the packing block. I’m pretty good at doing these things, but it took a while to figure out what the instructions were referring to, a round metal “donut” bolted to the flywheel where the blade irons attach. The block, er, “donut” needs to be unbolted and removed before the blade irons can be attached. Otherwise the installation went perfect.

(legalese)

Published in: on January 25, 2012 at 16:03  Leave a Comment  

What do I do, how do I vote,decisions, decisions…..

Dorothy… “Early voting begins this weekend. Quick, tell me who to vote for!! Maybe I could write in your name.”

Me…“You’re making a really big assumption, that I know what I’m talking about.“

Dorothy…“I think you would be just fine! All I hear is a lot of hot air.”

 ”Hot air” is often good. It lifts great balloons and their passengers to lofty heights allowing a view of earth rarely seen.

Ronald Reagan could have been characterized by some as “full of hot air.” He lifted us as a nation to a collective height we had not seen in many years.

But to your point. There is a lot of rhetoric being bandied about, but that is the norm for both primaries and general elections. It is up to us, the voters, to parse that rhetoric and decide. That’s a hard process and one most dislike because of the effort involved to do it well.

So, on the upcoming primary Jan 31. I too am having a difficult time making a decision. I see positives and negatives for all the potential candidates. But then, that is always, always the case.

Even in Barack Obama the fair minded person will recognize positive aspects of the person whether or not they agree with his policies and ideology.

If I could take Mitt Romney’s management experience, expertise and understanding of business and our economy, Newt Gingrich’s fountain of ideas, his oratorical skills and historical perspective of our nation, Rick Santorum’s adherence to moral principles and Ron Paul’s commitment to reducing government to the smallest footprint possible, if I could consolidate that into one candidate the decision would be simple.

The current crop of candidates all maintains an adherence to those fundamental principles to one degree or another. And being human, they all have individual weaknesses, problems if you will, that serve as detraction from their strengths.

We do have a national distrust of those who’ve been very successful and accumulated a lot of wealth. Even those with whom we agree politically. We have been taught by liberals, progressives and the political left that wealth is bad and accumulation of wealth involves shady deals and dishonesty. A lesson, I must add, that has its roots in socialism. While there are examples to support the socialist story line, the reality is that their story is the rare exception, not the rule. Nearly all wealth comes through hard, smart work and risk taking.

As Christians we are wary of those who experience moral failure in their marriages and ask our forgiveness, even as we embrace and lift up those who murder and kill when they claim to be washed by God’s grace. (To that question I would ask, “which is more important, our forgiveness or God’s?” Or, “what do we do with King David who failed morally yet God trusted him with the leadership of Israel?”)

Again, as Christians, we are distrustful; this time with reason, of someone who would not wholly support Israel, while as Americans we generally understand that in today’s world there is and cannot be any such thing as isolationism.

Meanwhile, we want to be careful to not “throw away” our vote, or our support, by commitment to a candidate for whom success, both in the primary and the general election, seems less likely.

So, there you have it, the great dilemma for American and more specifically Florida conservatives and Republicans. The stuff I hear bandied about by the PACs, especially the negative, I immediately throw out. They have no connection to or control by the candidate. They will say, advertise and do whatever they think will cause harm to the competition.

I have concerns about a candidate who appears to dismiss or not address legitimate concerns. One who does the same with trumped up concerns is of lesser importance to me (i.e. Romney’s tax return issue).

A candidate who, on the other hand, directly addresses a legitimate concern will get a “tic” in the plus column for openness and honesty (i.e. Gingrich’s response regarding his former wife’s charges.) In this case, the fact that his response is bolstered by others directly involved, his daughters, is a plus.

While I have to admit I have sympathies for libertarian ideas and the freedom to live as we choose without government intrusion, taken to its fullest, libertarianism leads inevitably to chaos, not something I embrace.

When it comes to who do I think would have the best chance against Barack Obama in the general election I like Gingrich in going toe to toe in the debates, putting forth strong, well thought out ideas and scoring rhetorical points with the American electorate.  On the other hand, he does seem to have a history that reminds of a child with ADHD, quickly moving from point to point to point with little willingness to see a project to its conclusion. Though some would counter that his ushering the “Contract with America” through Congress demonstrates he is able to follow through.

 I’m not so sure Romney would fare well in the general election, not because of his ability to lead, he gets strong points there, but because he seems to come off unprepared and unable to handle the unanticipated. In the debates that would be a “death sentence.” His experience in business leadership may be a plus or negative. Leading a nation is not wholly like leading a company. It’s more like chairing a committee with 535 raucous members, each vying for an advantage on one hand, and to stab you in the back on the other.

Santorum I have to conclude is like Sarah Palin in that he has demonstrated unswerving commitment to his beliefs. Unlike her he has been almost completely unable to generate excitement in his candidacy. I voted for Palin and McCain in the last election based more on her then him. That a candidate who doesn’t have a “snowballs chance” in winning, electability if you will, is not a standalone reason to not vote for them.

As a Christian I know God can and will work miracles in the lives of men and of nations. In working those miracles He chooses to work through men, even groups of men, but generally in individuals. I know He will turn what seems a lost cause and make it come to pass. We thought that was the case in the last election with the McCain/Palin ticket.

Because McCain/Palin lost doesn’t mean God lost, rather, His plan and timeline was not ours. Is it this time? I want to think so, but I am human with human weaknesses and foibles.

Now, back to your question, which candidate for the Florida primary? I’m currently down to two, Gingrich and Santorum. I’m leaning Santorum, but the winds of Gingrich keep blowing me back. If I was to vote today, I think it would be Santorum, even as a very long shot. If I wait until closer to January 31, who knows?

Published in: on January 22, 2012 at 11:48  Leave a Comment  

HHS-OS-2011-0022-0001, a violation of our Constitutional rights

On August 1 just past, the Obama administration’s HHS secretary, Donna Shalala published a rule under the healthcare act commonly referred to as “Obamacare” that will impose requirements on organizations and businesses that purchase health insurance to include full coverage, without deductible or co-payment, for birth control products, including abortion drugs such as Ella and Plan B.

There is a narrow exemption in the proposal directed at churches and religious seminaries that, under the HHS definition “primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets” and “has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose.” This narrow exemption will, by it’s definition, not apply to religious organizations that serve the poor, provide health care, provide food, provide abortion, rape or abuse counseling or provide private school services to their communities. Under liberal interpretation it could even fail to exempt local churches that provide benevolence services or even missionary or evangelical ministries to other than their core constituency.

Christian ministries by their very Biblical basis are focused not on other Christians, but on reaching and ministering to the hurting and needy of all religious persuasions, or no religious affiliation. Widows and orphans are specifically mentioned by James as among those to whom the Church is to minister. A church that looks only into itself is a church that is not only violating it’s Biblical mandate, but is dying.

HHS reveals it’s lack of understanding of the basic purpose Christian ministry. According to Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the proposed regulation, according to her, “conveniently ignores the underlying principle of Catholic charitable actions: we help people because we are Catholic, not because our clients are.”

I would go a step further and offer that this proposal understands this core tenet, that applies to all Christian ministry, and takes advantage of it knowing full well that these ministries will fail the exemption clause and suffer the imposition of a government mandated increase in their cost of providing insurance services to their employees, while at the same time summarily impose federal regulations that are antithetical to the philosophies, beliefs and objectives of these ministries in particular, and Christianity in general.

Catholics, who as a rule have a stronger stance against birth control products and abortion than mainline or even Evangelical Christian groups have taken a strong stance against the proposal. Michael Sean Winter wrote in National Catholic Reporter, “Keeping the rule as is would give me great pause in casting my ballot for Barack Obama next year, not because he failed to do right by my Church, but because anyone who fails to grasp the constitutional issue here probably should not be entrusted with the post of Chief Magistrate under that same Constitution.”

All Christians, yes, all Americans, should stand together, acting as a bulwark, against this proposal that is an affront to our beliefs and our compassion, an imposition against our Biblical authority for service, a marginalization of our ministry to those less fortunate and a violation of our First Amendment freedoms.

HHS-OS-2011-0022-0001 is a draconian rule designed to marginalize Christian groups by limiting their Biblical mandate under federal law and is more akin to what one would expect in a majority Muslim or Communist nation. As such it should be struck down and withdrawn for the following reasons.

By ignoring the basic tenet of Christian ministry, HHS-OS-2011-0022-0001 will, in effect, act as a tax on these groups, and impose rules that require them act against their core beliefs and philosophies.

This proposal ignores and violates the the First Amendment of the US Constitution and will, if enacted as proposed, serve to prohibit the free exercise of Christian organizations and their adherents, it will limit their free speech rights to share their beliefs, and it will violate their freedom of assembly, under threat of federally imposed rules that will increase their costs and cause them to spend contributor donations on insurance services that may violate their belief structure.

In summary, HHS-OS-2011-0022-0001 should be withdrawn as it violates the constitutional freedoms of a large groups of citizens and their organizations and is antithetical to the guarantees given in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The comment period is still open as of this post. You can weigh in and post your comments, for or against HHS-OS-2011-0022-0001 by going to regulations.gov. In the field for “select document type” choose “proposed rule.” In the field for “enter keyword or ID” type “HHS-OS-2011-0022-0001,” then press “search.” You’ll be taken to a page where you can type your comment.

It may be helpful if you compose your thoughts and comments in a text editor before going to the comment page, then paste them into the comment field and add a title for your comments.

Published in: on August 21, 2011 at 09:20  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Harry Reid was for NOT raising the debt

Harry Reid was for NOT raising the debt limit before he was FOR raising the debt limit. I’m confused, what’s changed? Oh yeah, his guy is in charge now and Reid’s the Senate majority leader, makes all the difference.

Published in: on April 12, 2011 at 19:27  Leave a Comment  

I’ve deactivated my Facebook account

I’ve deactivated my Facebook account. The unnecessarily transparent voyeurism into the lives of those I love too often brings undesired proximity to the personal and private drama of the lives of those I care about but have no need of the knowledge of issues that should, in my humble and decidedly personal opinion, remain within the privacy of the immediate family.

This is not a criticism, just, I suppose, a quirky outgrowth of the decades long arms length physical separation I’ve had from my family which allows for brief moments of time together but prevents allowing, as my dad so often colorfully and eloquently says, the fish to stink. Sadly, facebook has become an unwitting means of allowing “stinking fish” to invade my neat little life where I’ve constructed a perspective I’m as yet unwilling to let go and as I grow older seem to cling to more dearly.

I must admit, facebook has allowed me to see a number of the personal dynamics in play that I’ve long suspected, but having left home so early, had little personal experience to substantiate. It has also taught me how important it is to be cautious in relationship dynamics. It’s not just my family and friends on facebook, I also have been observing such things first hand locally.

That said, perhaps it’s more me than others. Perhaps I’ve lived too sheltered a life, uncluttered with the messiness of children and difficult experiences thrown at others. Perhaps that makes me less sympathetic or understanding of the difficulties faced by others as I live my sheltered life of self-imposed semi-seclusion. Aw well, so much for selfish introspection.

No doubt few will take notice of my demise and fewer still will make effort to inquire where I’ve gone. That is simply the nature of our modern world made up of superficial “friendships.” But honestly, that is not new to the digital world. I experienced that superficiality long before facebook was a gleam in the eye of it’s founders.

Others may well come to the conclusion that I’ve made errant decisions in my life that draw me to seclusion from old relationships. I find no discomfort in that misconception, only solace that I must and will follow the direction I know to be right for me at this time.

Perhaps I will be a bit more productive without the distraction of lives lived on a world wide stage. While I still believe that, as GK Chesterton said, “we are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and we owe each other a terrible loyalty,” I guess in this part of that vast ocean I’ve decided to “bail out.”

Published in: on February 14, 2011 at 05:00  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Your tax dollars at work?

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal highlights a growing trend in government subsidized housing.

We are now learning that not only have your tax dollars been used to bail out banks that make bad loan decisions and home buyers who stupidly signed for home loans they couldn’t afford, but now enterprising individuals are buying up some of these foreclosed houses and renting them out as federal section 8 subsidized housing.

You can go to GoSection8.com and browse to see what’s available, most are traditional subsidized housing, apartment, townhouses, duplexes and so forth, but there are a few gems, such 10215 Splendor Ridge , Las Vegasas this one, 10215 Splendor Ridge, Las Vegas. It’s a 2,203 sq. ft. 4/3 for only $1,900 / month. Now really, what section 8 qualified tenant really needs a house of this caliber? That’s aside from the moral question of whether taxpayer dollars should be paying for this.

One tenant whose story is told on the WSJ reporter’s blog moved from St. Louis to Las Vegas to rent a 2,000 sq. ft. section 8 home, her rent based on her income is $400 for the 5 bedroom home. The taxpayer chips in $1,400 a month. Does anyone besides me see anything wrong with this picture?

One individual mentioned in the story bought a Las Vegas home for $60K cash, registered it as Section 8 housing and is now getting $1,500 a month deposited in his account, courtesy of the taxpayer. After taxes, maintenance and fees, he’s profit is $15,000 per year. Not bad. Meanwhile, the federal budget deficit continues to spiral out of control.

I’m waiting for a thank-you note, or two, or three, think I’ll get one?

Our National Anthem

The following is a re-post from “Chaos Manor Musings” by Jerry Pournelle. While this comes after the Independence Day celebrations, I’ve heard the basic story several times over the years and it always bears retelling.

This is especially at this time when our nation’s history is being truncated and the stories of those who fought and died to create this nation are being lost, or at least obfuscated. The following is a retelling of an anecdote of Issac Asimov.

I have a weakness–I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.

The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I’m taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.

I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem–all four stanzas.

This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. “Thanks, Herb,” I said.

“That’s all right,” he said. “It was at the request of the kitchen staff.”

I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.

Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before–or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.

So now let me tell you how it came to be written.

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.

At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England. The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.

The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.

On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.

As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.

As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, trying to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, “Can you see the flag?”

After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called “The Defence of Fort M’Henry,” it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called “To Anacreon in Heaven” –a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key’s work became known as “The Star Spangled Banner,” and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.

Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?

Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,

O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof thro’ the night that our flag was still there.

Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

“Ramparts,” in case you don’t know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer

On the shore, dimly seen thro’ the mist of the deep,

Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,

What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep.

As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,

In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream

‘Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

“The towering steep” is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure.

In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.

During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion

A home and a country should leave us no more?

Their blood has washed out their foul footstep’s pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation,

Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n – rescued land

Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto–”In God is our trust.”

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.

And don’t let them ever take it away.

–Isaac Asimov, March 1991

Happy Independence Day!

Published in: on July 5, 2010 at 18:06  Leave a Comment  

saturday is stamp out hunger day

May 8 is just around the corner, and for those who have need reminding, it is Stamp Out Hunger day for the US Postal Service. This will be the 18th year of this national food drive that, though led by the National Association of Letter Carriers (that’s the city mail carriers), all Postal employees participate.

I Support Stamp Out Hunger Food Drive — Saturday, May 8th Saturday, May 8th With support from such organizations as Campbell’s Foods, the direct mail advertiser Val-Pak, the United Way, Cox Media, Valassis Communications, Feeding America and the AFL-CIO, postal employees will notify postal customers to set out non-perishable grocery items by their mail boxes and on that Saturday, as the carriers deliver the mail, they will collect the donations of their customers.

The success of this national food drive involving over 10,000 local post offices has been phenomenal. Nearly 1 Billion pounds of food items have been collected in the 17 years since it’s inception and it is hoped they will cross that 1 Billion pound mile marker this year!

To participate all you have to do is pick up a few additional non-perishable items for the food drive as you do your normal grocery shopping this week. On Saturday morning just place those items in a grocery bag or box and set them by your mailbox. Your carrier will collect them and take them to the post office.

After arriving at the post office, other employees will categorize donations and load them into containers to transport to participating food banks in your area. Yes, your donation will help hungry people living close to you, perhaps even a friend or family member.

If you forget or won’t be home on Saturday, don’t fret, you can take your donations to your local post office either on Thursday, Friday or even Monday and they will be added to all the other donations and forwarded to the food banks.

The important thing is to remember, and give. If we all give a little, it will mean a lot to those who need it in these difficult economic time. Go to Stamp Out Hunger or the USPS Newsroom to learn more.

one last fling of spring, let’s ride!

According to the weather guy (gal?) we are enjoying the last vestiges of springtime in Florida.  The past few days have been, in a word, marvelous.  Lows in the mid-upper 50′s, highs in the 70′s to mid-80′s, low humidity.  It’s been nearly perfect weather.

Time on the back porch, the screen room if you will, has been a joy.  The comfortable climate coupled with the sounds of birds tweeting (yes, not only twitter users tweet), the sweet aroma of blooming jasmine and now with the spring fall over, the fresh greens of new growth all combine to create a swell of joy and peace in heart, mind and soul.

Chinaberry tree in spring bloom

This is a great time to get out and enjoy the flora of Florida before the heat and humidity of summer takes over, driving all but the most determined and avid outdoors lovers into air conditioned retreat for the duration.   With summer comes the threat of the hurricane season, starting June 1, but while we never know how that will turn out, we always know summers will be hot and muggy.

So, with a few more weeks to get out without the oppressiveness of summer, I’ve been able to pull my Trek off the garage wall and start riding again.  The shoulder feels a little tight, but I figure the time since last July’s discovery has been sufficient to allow healing.

The biggest difference this time is, I’ll be mostly staying out of the sub-divisions and cul-de-sacs.  While theory says these mostly undeveloped areas should be safer than secondary roads, my experience has been otherwise.  So my first two 15 mile rides have been, can you hear that deep, authoritative voice, “away from the cul-de-sac.”

Maybe, just maybe, this year I’ll be able to follow through on last years goal of riding my age by my birthday.

Published in: on April 29, 2010 at 09:47  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

the lesson of apollo 13

Forty years ago this month the world shared a collective gasp as the words came across the miles, “Houston, we’ve had a problem.” Apollo 13, the third US spaceflight to the moon had suffered an explosion of one of it’s oxygen tanks and the future was looking very dim.

Apollo 13 Crew

Left to right: Lovell, Mattingly, Haise.

It was the third day of what was to be a mission to land at and explore the Moon’s Fra Mauro formation. Suddenly, 199,990 miles from Earth, there was an explosion of one of the Service Module oxygen tanks, resulting in the failure of both O2 tanks.

With power, oxygen and water supplies dwindling the crew was forced to cut short their quest to the moon, turn around and hope through some miracle they would land safely and see their families again. Did they worry or despair? There wasn’t time. Did they look to the President or Congress for help? No way! They needed answers and they needed them now!

So who did these interstellar explorers turn to in their time of desperation? There was no rescue capsule to send for them. They couldn’t just stop and get off. They turned to the people they knew they could trust. They turned to the team, the engineers and scientists who designed and provided the support for their mission.

James Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert also knew that no matter what plan, what “MacGyver-ed” contraption Mission Control came up with, it’s implementation depended solely on them, the crew of Apollo 13.  The best plan will go nowhere if it’s not carried out, if those it’s meant to help don’t take ownership and put forth the effort, what ever it takes, to carry out the task.

The mission of Apollo 13 could well have ended in disaster, instead it became a symbol of what can happen when we start thinking “outside the box.” When we turn to our own ingenuity, inner strength and creativity, work as a team towards a common goal, never give into despair and never give up amazing results can happen.

What would have happened had the crew of Apollo 13 simply sat back and had taken no responsibility for their circumstances and their future? The failure of the craft was certainly not attributable to anything they had done. It could be argued that they were depending on the very people who may have created the problem to bring to them the solution. Yet, they trusted them, and the crew believed in themselves to carry out the plan.

Apollo 13 crew postmission onboard USS Iwo Jima

Apollo 13 crew postmission onboard USS Iwo Jima

Through sheer grit, determination and creative problem solving, nearly 3 days later, a total of 5 days, 22 hours, 54 minutes after exploding off lauch pad 39a at Kennedy Space Center, Apollo 13 and her crew splashed down in the Pacific Ocean near Samoa and were retrieved by the USS Iwo Jima.

So, what lessons can be learned from Apollo 13 that apply to us as individuals and as a nation?

First, we have to take ownership, of our individual lives and of the life of our nation.  We can no longer entrust others to honor and uphold the most important gift we have as citizens or the United States, our freedom.

It is sad to have to admit it, but for the most part, those we elect to represent us have become seduced by the power entrusted to them.  In falling to that seduction, they have forgotten their oath of office and sacred duty to serve and represent those who elected them to office.  Many have come to believe that they are “deserving” of the power and that they should not serve the people, but contrarily the people should serve them.

In that same vein, the people, the voters have abdicated their responsibility to know and understand their government, instead immersing themselves in the pleasures of living and “trusting” their representatives to just “do the right thing.”  If we have learned anything over the past 10 years,when left to their own, politicians will tend to do what they want, right or wrong, rather than seek to best follow the will of the people they represent.

Second, when we don’t know what to do, go to those who best understand the systems.  In recent history that has come to mean “go to Washington.”  But that would be like going to those who file bankruptcy to get budget advice.  To the morbidly obese for dieting suggestions or to the chronically ill for healthy living tips.

Our relationship, as voters, to Washington politicians should be the same as that of an employer to employee.  After all, that’s exactly what they, the politicians are, our employees.  When a business owner has an employee who is working against the interests of the business, he doesn’t shrug his shoulder and sigh, “oh well, that’s just how he is.”

No!  That business owner, that employer counsels and instructs that employee what he or she is required to do, and expects them to follow instructions.  If that employee fails to do so, they loose the opportunity to represent that businessman.  We citizens, as those who “employ” the politicians must take the same stance with them and have the same expectations.

Finally, as “owners” in this great experiment called America, we must take action.  Had the astronauts of Apollo 13 failed to take action on the advice of their expert engineers, instead of praising that flight as a “successful failure,” we would be visiting a memorial to the bravery of her crew.

In 1775, had those who found rule by an overbearing and unresponsive English government simply whined and complained, we would still be a colony of the British Empire.  Instead, those brave men not only complained to their government, they formed a revolution.  In those days, that meant when the king turned a deaf ear to their repeated complaints following their principals meant taking up arms to secure their freedom.

Thankfully, today, our constitution has given us a less violent remedy.  It’s called the freedom to vote.  But we must take that obligation at the ballot box just as seriously as our founding fathers did the sword and musket.  If there must be carnage in Washington, that battle must take place at the ballot box.  As citizens, our weapons are our freedom, our intellect and our good judgment.  We must learn, get involved and act.

We, as individuals and as a nation, must take action to not only regain our freedom, but to prove to ourselves and to the world that we individually deserve that freedom.  For if we merely sit back and take a disinterested view of our democratic process and of our governance, we truly don’t deserve the freedom given to us by our constitution.  Moreover, we do deserve the chains and bondage heaped on us by those we entrusted to keep us free.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.