Tom Garrett

Tom Garrett 4 hours, 36 minutes ago on 882 Can you explain this?

No Robbin. That's what you might think if you didn't know how the system works.

Think of it this way and you'll immediately get it.

I could run a pipe to your house from a tank of water that was 50 feet away. The water would come straight out of your tap the minute you turned it on, but it would take a minute or so to get to you from the tank, right?

I could also run a pipe to your house from a tank of water that was 50 miles away. The water would still come out of your tap the instant you turned it, but water that was far away in the tank would take a long time to get to you, true? However, there would be a steady supply of water flowing over the whole distance, true?

So the water in the Tower Well is being constantly recharged. It is being recharged all the time, but its sources are not as close as those which recharge the shallow local wells. The recharging is constant. It's just that we don't see the water until it gets here, but the layer of water is continuous. It's not like shipping a package across the country and then having to wait until the next one gets here.

Hydrology can be a complex subject at times. I remember in one course reading about a fascinating test that was run near the Mississippi River. There was an underground stream on one side of the river — I think it was eight or ten miles away, but I can't be sure. Someone wondered if it came from the Mississippi. All the tests they ran said no, and they wondered where in the world the water came from. So they cast about for its source. Finally they came across a cave system on the opposite side of the river, and they put some fluorescent dye into it. To their utter amzement, the dye showed up in the water far away on the opposite side of the Mississippi, clearly showing that the stream ran right under the mighty Mississippi without mixing with it.


Tom Garrett 5 hours, 1 minute ago on 880 The Question Is..... An NPR headline.

Actually, I am wrong. Impeachment has become such a politicized process that it is almost a waste of time. I guess the proper approach is to take it to court. The law of our land is our written Constitution. It requires that there be a separation of powers and that each branch of the government work within the limits of its powers. We are just going to have to take the President to court. It doesn't matter that the Constitution sets up another way of handling him; that does not say that we can't also take him to court.

So as much as I hate to see it, we have to at long last show anyone sitting in the oval office who decides to abuse his powers that he will suffer for it. We do it at all other levels, don;t we? There is no immunity from the law no matter how high and nighty you may think you are. That's why we had the revolution, remember?

What a shame!

But never forget these words:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Tom Garrett 5 hours, 9 minutes ago on Update on Wolves around RIm

PS: Thanks, John. We all knew this was coming, but unless someone mentions it we won't know about it until we see a report of missing three year old on the evening news.

It is such a shame! We all love the wilds, and I have yet to meet anyone who didn't want to see them preserved for future generations as much as possible. That even goes for dangerous predators, as long as they are kept away from humans.

This is a case where everyone could be working toward a common goal, but fanatics who just do not understand what they are doing separate us into two camps, one armed with eyes and ears filled with bad science and just plain lies, and the other armed with knowledge and righteous anger. Why does it have to be that way? Why can't the environmentalist groups wake up, realize that the truth is the truth, get rid of the fanatics, and let us all focus on what can and should be done? The result is going to be the same either way; why not join hands and fight the good fight instead of tilting at windmills?


Tom Garrett 5 hours, 20 minutes ago on Update on Wolves around RIm

The whole problem goes to the essential ignorance behind "reintroduction."

I've said this before. The scientific issue is clear; If a animal no longer exists in any given area where it once thrived, it is because the niche for that animal no longer exists. It is now occupied by other animals — and in this discussion humans are considered animals in the sense that they too occupy a niche. Reintroducing an animal to a place where its niche is occupied by other animals creates immediate competition in an area where nature has had time to balance itself, and causes the exact same competition which killed out the animal in the first place to reoccur.

So. First reintroduction; then reoccurrence of competition; then restoration of the steady state balance that existed before reintroduction.

What environmentalists try to do is to unbalance that equation with laws. Human laws are a load of crap when it comes to science. The only laws that apply in scientific matters are scientific ones.

Le Chatelier's Principle: "When stress is applied to a system at equilibrium the system will respond in such a way as to restore the equilibrium." You might as well try to repeal the law of gravity as to try introducing unwanted species into human inhabited areas.

A simple example of Le Chatelier's Principle: Put some water in a jar. Close the top. Watch. The level of the water will drop very slightly as the temperature inside the jar causes some evaporation. Then there will be a steady state — equilibrium. If you place stress on the system inside the jar by warming it slightly, the result will be more water in the vapor state and less in the liquid state, but unless you keep heating the jar the system will inevitably return to its original state. No matter how many times you try to change it it will simply go back to its natural equilibrium every time. You cannot defeat the laws of science with the laws of humankind. It doesn't work.

Environmentalists who try such nonsense are dreamers who think that the planet will obey them by staying exactly the same as it was in 1804 if only they can get it back to what it was then. Well, I have news for them. Not too long ago in the geological record India was a part of Antarctica. Then it decided to wander off to the north and wang into Asia, thereby creating the Himalayans. And to quote from Omar Khayyam, who said it long ago:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

Tom Garrett 5 hours, 43 minutes ago on 884 A nightmare come true?

I have never understood how we allow the pay for a lawyer to be proportionate to the settlement. Where's the logic of that? The pay for anyone ought to be proportionate to the amount of time and work he spends on the task he is given..


Tom Garrett 1 day, 4 hours ago on 884 A nightmare come true?

One of my favorite poems, Abou Ben Adhem, starts this way:

"Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!) Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace, And saw, within the moonlight in his room, Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom, An angel writing in a book of gold:—"

You ought to read it; it has a great ending. Just Google "Abou Ben Adhem" and enjoy some of the best thoughts ever written. Really! I am not kidding.

Meanwhile, back on the operating table....

Johnny Lee Banks Jr, 56, awoke at the Princeton Baptist Medical Center in Birmingham, Alabama, but he did not see any angels writing in any books.

Instead, he discovered that during a simple circumcision operation someone had gone too far — way too far!

He is, "devastated."

Well, wouldn't you be?

I wouldn't even have troubled you with this incident except for two things that will make you think:

a. A spokeswoman for the hospital's parent company said in a statement that Johnny's complain was "without merit," and "We intend to defend all counts aggressively."

What? How do you defend that kind of mistake?

b. A comment was made in the Reuters article that, "The lawsuit does not specify the monetary value of the damages."

I can see that. That would be a hard call, don't you agree?


Tom Garrett 1 day, 4 hours ago on 880 The Question Is..... An NPR headline.

I spotted a headline on NPR that asked a question.

For once I even had an answer.

Here they are, question and answer:

NPR headline:

"Who Are The Kids Of The Migrant Crisis?"

Tom's answer:

"I don't know, but I know who fathered the problem."

Hi, BHO! How ya doin? :-)

And so, The Question Is....

Which do we get rid of?

First, I mean.

BHO, or his 55,000 illegal — and counting — kids?

Seriously. Can you picture any other American President, at any time in history, doing something like this?

Is it perhaps time to actually be thinking about impeachment?

PS: I never thought I would ever say or even think those words.


Tom Garrett 1 day, 4 hours ago on 883 Some thoughts on the Governor's race.

To see what I am talking about, please read Governor candidate hails Payson’s plan in the Friday, July 25, Roundup.

There's a whole lot more in that article than I mentioned and I wouldn't want you to think I was doing the pick-and-choose routine I sometimes see in string-starters on other forums. It's just that there's a limit to how long a string starting post ought to be.

But go read the whole thing. I rather like the way Frank Riggs talks — and it doesn't seem like all talk either.

Your Turn to say something. :-)


Tom Garrett 1 day, 4 hours ago on 822 Know the answer to this? You're way ahead of me.

I think that the DOJ backed off because it is obvious that County officials are answerable to the state, not to some Godlike group in DC.

Do you see it that way?


Tom Garrett 1 day, 4 hours ago on 881 Does PSWID need a master plan?

Thanks, Pam. There's nothing like solid information to defuse potential misunderstandings.

I admit it; I had no idea who had to run when, why, and for what. But now that I see the facts, it makes a few of the comments that have made seem rather immaterial.

Also, I thought the board had already had four meetings, and that says a lot. They are out there trying to get a handle on our problems and get them resolved. My comment to the board is simple:

Take your time, do it right, and plan on having our support all the way.

And thanks!