Why are there only male flowers on my squash and cucumber plants?

This is a very common question for which there no completely satisfactory answer. Most gardeners can distinguish male squash and cucumber flowers, which are simply a flower on a stem, from female flowers, which are attached to a small immature squash or cucumber. Gardener's also know the production of these plants can be increased by transferring the pollen from a male flower to a female flower with small artist's paint brush. But, what if there are no female flowers? First, not to panic! Normally the first 10 to 20 flowers on a plant in the gourd family are male flowers. Thereafter, these plants produce 10 to 20 male flowers for every female flower. The reason for this genetic discrepancy is unknown. The gardener simply has to be patent and let nature take its course, the female flowers will come in time and there in nothing one can do to hasten their arrival. For the sake of completeness I should add, that there are gynoecious varieties of cucumbers that produce only, or mostly, female flowers. These seedless types of cucumbers do not require pollination and thus are ideal plants to grow in a greenhouse. In fact, if they are pollinated the resulting fruit is deformed and bitter tasting. These F1 cucumber hybrids include Dove, Raven, Falcon, Luna, Neptune and Diva. This is an excerpt from my soon to be published book Gardening The Organic way.

Ronald Reagan's Biggest Political Blunder.

I believe Ronald Reagan was one of America's greatest presidents, maybe the greatest. However, all of the world's great leaders make mistakes, after all their feet are made of clay similar to yours and mine. Some, like Obama, make nothing but mistakes. In the case of Reagan, many would say that his biggest error in judgment was in agreeing to grant citizenship to millions of Mexican illegal's in exchange for liberals promise to secure our borders. We all know how that turned out, don't we? But Reagan's biggest mistake was not in agreeing to this foolish deal proposed by Tip O'Neill; rather it occurred years before when Reagan was governor of what was then the great state of California. We Californians are still paying for this error in judgment, some 50 years later. When I entered medical school 56 years ago, California had two large mental institutions, one in Newark and one in Napa. The Newark facility, where I served a rotation while in medical school at USC, had over 1,000 patients, the one in Napa was only slightly smaller. In those days the mentally ill were sent to these institutions for treatment and, more importantly, since treatment was most often unsuccessful, for long term care. Then along came the psychiatrists, the dumbest members of the medical profession by far. These mental lightweights convinced Governor Regan, who was all about reducing the cost of government, that the great majority of those institutionalized in mental facilities could be managed with psychiatric medications in an out-patient setting; thus, saving the tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars each year by eliminating the costs of institutionalizing them. There were three major flaws in this ill conserved plan. First, people with mental illnesses most often do not know they are ill; thus, they will not voluntarily return for treatment. Rather, to be treated, they must be confined. Second, not believing that they need treatment, mentally ill people will refuse to take the medications that keep them reasonably sane unless forced to by the medical personal where they are confined. Finally, even if they are willing to take their medications and do so, most, if left to their own devices will, sooner rather than later, come to the conclusion that they are cured and stop coming to the out-patient clinics set up to care for them. Any third year medical student, worth his salt, in the mid 1900s could have predicted the outcome of this flawed and silly governmental program and many of us did! However, reason did not prevail and the large mental institutions in California were closed, or greatly reduced in size, and the institutionalized were turned loose to wreak havoc on society. How so, you may ask? An estimated 70 percent, no one knows the number for sure, of those living under your local freeway overpass are mentally ill or outright insane. Similarly, the criminal insane, who should never have been allowed to roam the streets of America in the first place, make up a significant segment of our prison population. Finally, it has become so bad that the mentally ill are allowed to fly planes filled with innocent passengers into mountain sides. Yes, I know this latest abomination did not occur in California, but it just as well could have! In summary, Reagan's attempt to save money by closing California's mental institutions has been an unmitigated disaster! The resulting toll this flawed policy has had on society, and the mentally ill people it was designed to help, are inestimable! The primary lesson to be learned from this fiasco is that the mentally ill cannot care for themselves and must be cared for by society. Not to do so is self-destructive and inhuman in the extreme. In closing, let me point out that outpatient clinics which supply narcotics to drug addicts have been very successful in reducing drug related crimes and in caring for the drug addict. These programs are successful because the drug addict usually is not mentally ill. Rather, these unfortunates simple have an addiction and we as a society have correctly come to the conclusion that it is simpler, and more cost effective, to supply them with drugs rather than attempt to treat their addiction.

The Plastic Bag Scandal

It goes without saying that plastic waste is a significant global environmental problem! The world generates over 300 million tons of plastic waste each year, only 10 percent of which is recycled. More worrisome, 17 percent of this material ends up in the ocean. Just how effective, do you think, will California's war on plastic take-home bags be in reducing the environmental pollution caused by plastic waste? Most likely we will never know the answer to this all important question. After all, the politicians have made an effort to "fix" the problem and that’s all that really matters in the la-la land in which liberals live. Whether or not the "fix" works is of little or no importance. Common sense should tell us that the ban on plastic take-home bags will have little or no effect on the mountains of plastic waste we humans generate each year. This is so, because nearly everything you buy at a retail outlet these days is contained in a plastic sack or container, even corn flakes. Thus, what difference does it really make if our purchases are carried home in yet another plastic container? I will argue that it doesn't

make the slightest bit of difference, none at all! In fact, the liberal do-gooders who passed this meaningless legislation are making a giant mountain out of a infinitesimally small mole-hill. But, I have led the reader slightly astray because this absurd piece of poorly crafted legislation is about a lot more than simply banning plastic bags at the supermarket. Rather, it is about banning all take-home bags at retail outlets unless, of course, you pay an extra charge for paper. How in the Sam hill, you might be asking, did paper get into this fight? Good question! As we all know paper products including grocery bags, cardboard containers and the like, decompose relatively rapidly when disposed of and are not a significant problem, wherever they end up (by the way, my composting earthworms love paper products of all kinds). More importantly perhaps, paper comes from trees which are a renewable natural resource in ready supply. People make money growing trees and turning them into paper, so what’s not to like about the paper industry and their products they produce for us? No, something went badly wrong when the liberal politicians in Sacramento crafted this destructive piece of legislation. Why, include paper bags in legislation designed to decrease the amount of plastic which ends up in our landfills, streams and oceans? That’s the $64,000 question. Well, first because there is a lot of money to be made in bags if the retailers do not have to provide them for free! Second, politicians live on the campaign contributions provided to them by corporations like Safeway who will profit handsomely from the plastic bag ban. I have been unable to determine how much money Safeway contributes to the campaign coffers of politicians they consider to be "business friendly" however, you can be sure it is substantial. So, how do you convince customers to pay for something they are accustomed to receiving for free? The first step is to outlaw the plastic grocery bag and force customers to bring their own cloth bags or pay ten cents for ones made of paper. Remember that before the social engineers got their fingers in the grocery store’s "bag of tricks" you had a choice of plastic or paper, both of which were free. At this point, plastic bags are a thing of the distant past and the previously free paper ones now cost ten cents. As a result, merchants are way ahead of the game because they now only have to stock one type of bag; more importantly, they made a nice profit by selling the paper bags they previously provided for free. Nice work if you can get it! Sure, some of us who were accustomed to free grocery bags are pissed, just as we were when gasoline hit $4.50 a gallon. But, as with the gasoline rip-off, time has a way of deadening the effect of what you pay for things and we consumers undoubtedly will soon forget that bags were once free and be willingly pay an added charge for the convenience of transporting our food and beverages home in bags rather than piece-meal in the trunk or back seat of the car. However, the "rip-off artists" at Safeway, in cahoots with their political cronies in Sacramento, were just "warming up" when they decided to screw the public by banning plastic bags and requiring us to buy ones made from paper! As I made my way through the check-out line at our local Safeway yesterday morning I noticed something new, a large rack of fancy plastic take home bags. I kid you not, less than two weeks after banning free plastic bags, the bureaucrats in Sacramento authorized the sale of similar plastic bags- at 25 cents a pop! I was told that the new bags were more environmentally friendly and would last longer than the previous free ones. Really? Somehow, I am a bit skeptical of these claims and common sense tells me that, sooner rather than later, the new 25 cent bags will end up in our landfills and oceans, side by side with the previous free ones!

The Price We Pay For Gender Equality

Before beginning I want to make two points. First, I am all for equal pay for equal work and all other forms of gender equality. If Carla Fiorina runs for the Presidency, I will be one of her strongest supporters! I might even support her campaign financially, although that would be unlikely considering my reluctance to squander money on hopeless endeavors. No, this article is not about equal rights for women; rather, it is about the cost society is paying for a females right to forgo her traditional role as a wife and mother to compete with males in the world of politics, finance and, yes, even truck driver. Second, this article pertains primarily to the white, Caucasian, world, not the peoples who are descendants of the Negroid and Mongolian branches of the species know as homo-sapiens. One could make the argument, however, that all members of the human race have suffered, and will continue to suffer, from the deterioration of traditional family unit brought on by the feminist movement. I want to begin this discussion by pointing out that in the early twentieth century fifty percent of the smartest whites on the planet were house wives! Oh, where were a few exceptions to this rule even then, but those who gave up their traditional roles of wife and mother to enter the work force in the early 1900s were miniscule in number and their effect on society of little consequence. To keep the remainder of this discussion in perspective, recall that, on average, each female of a given ethnic group must give birth to 2.2 live children just to maintain its status quo. The birth rate in 1911 for white women in the United States was 3.4; by 1992 it had dropped to 1.89! By comparison, the birth rate of black women in 1992 year was 2.2 while the fertility rate of Mexican American women was 2.47. As Hilary Clinton would argue, “What difference, at this point, does it make? Well, a great deal of difference! Here's why. I have concentrated on Caucasian women in this blog because America was predominately a white nation when our society began to unravel in the mid-twentieth century. However, the genetic makeup of all ethnic groups in this country, and most of the western world for that matter, have been ill-effected by women's liberation. This is so because smart well educated women of all races have significantly fewer children than do their uneducated and duller counterparts. For example, the fertility rate of educated white women (with a masters or higher) was 1.4 in 1992 while the birthrate of similarly educated Blacks and Latinos was 1.3 and 1.7 respectively. Thus, the effects, good and bad, of the feminist movement cuts across all races; the smarter they are, the lower their fertility rate. As a result, America and her sister Western Nations are becoming dumber with each passing second! In fact, western civilization has lost approximately 1.5 IQ points with each passing generation since the Elizabethan era and I believe the race toward national stupidity is accelerating. This loss of inherent genetic IQ is made all the more significant because the replacement population is largely comprised of Mexican and South American illegal's who have a mean IQ of 86, a full fourteen IQ points below that of the average Caucasian women. Now, I can hear the yelling, screaming and gnashing of teeth from the liberals who may, by chance, have stumbled onto this blog. These people have been educated by the liberal intelligentsia who, based on studies performed on rats and pigeons, would have us believe that all humans, irrespective of race, are born with roughly equal intelligence. If this were so, obviously, it wouldn't make a lick of difference who are having the babies, just as long as someone is turning them out in large numbers. I addressed this issue in some length in my book America in Decline and will not argue the point further here, other than to point out that every single one of the 167 creditable studies on human intelligence (those performed on humans, not rats and pigeons) have shown that there is a significant racial difference in mean IQ. The only question argued amongst the researches who performed these studies related to the magnitude of the racial differences in IQ, not the fact that such differences in innate intelligence exist. Still not convinced? Well then, consider this fact. Thirteen point five percent of the world's 1,226 billionaires are Jewish even though they make up less than 0.2 percent of the world's population. This is an astounding statistic considering the fact that the Jewish population has been the most abused and discriminated against race on the planet earth throughout recorded history. Those who wish to study the racial differences in intelligence between the races should consult Herrnstein and Murray's magnificent expose on the subject in their book, The Bell Curve. In a world where education and intelligence are the keys to success in life, what, if anything, can be done to reverse our countries intellectual slide from greatness to mediocrity? As I point out in America In Decline, most of our social and economic problems could be solved relatively easily if there were simply the will to do so. To reverse our intellectual slide, however, will be a difficult and possibly even impossible, no matter how much of our national treasure is throw at the project. Certainly we should not discourage females from, being all they can be, as they make their way through the twisted paths of the professional, political and academic worlds we live in; however, we might provide economic incentives (tax incentives, monetary rewards and the like) to encourage, and make it easier, for successful bright women, of all races, to have children while they pursue their professional careers. Similarly, on the other side of the equation, we should consider paying low IQ women not to have children, especially if they are unmarried. A Norplant injection program, which would prevent conception for five years, is feasible and, of equal importance, cost effective. Finally, if we are to have any hope in reversing our national decline into intellectual mediocrity, we must stop the flow of low IQ illegal's from Mexico and South America into our country. I ask you, how hard would it be to accomplish that goal?

The importance Of School Gardens.

When I was growing up in rural Humboldt County all of our neighbors had a garden. Now 70 years later none of our neighbors in Alhambra Valley Ranch have a garden, although a few grow tomato plants in pots on their decks or patios during the summer. Today, most people buy their produce at the local food market or, if they are lucky enough to have one, at a local farmer's market. I also sell my home grown organic vegetables at a farmer's market and my customers invariably seem to be amazed at how much better things taste if they are raised in a local garden rather than in a large commercial enterprise hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. I always ask them if they have a garden and if not, why not? While some reply that they live in apartments or condominiums that do not provide the space for a garden, the majority seem to believe that gardening either is too time consuming or difficult. Some report that they have tried gardening on a small scale but have been unsuccessful in their attempts to grow their own fruits and vegetables. Many of these unfortunates seem to have concluded that only those with a green thumb can garden successfully. I hope this book puts that myth to rest once and for all! Anyone can become a successful gardener if they have the will to do it, anyone! In any case, the people of my generation were taught to garden by their parents. As I recall, it was much more fun to plant a seed and watch the resulting seedling spring from the soil and grow than it was to learn the math tables or attempt to master spelling, something I was incapable of doing. I believe that people who do not garden are missing out on one of most satisfying things life has to offer. I know those of you who garden will agree with me on this point. As an aside, I also believe that today's children would be better off if they spent more time in a garden and less time playing video games on their computers, but that is subject matter for another time. In my opinion, schools are for teaching a wide range of skills, not just the three R's, music, sports, sex education and political correctness as so often is the case today. Just as a students in our better schools today can learn to play the violin, act in a Shakespeare play or play football, they should have the opportunity to learn how to garden. Only a tiny fraction of those who learn to play the violin will become professional violinists and ever fewer of those who play high school football will play in the National Football League. However, the vast majority of those who are exposed to gardening in their formative years will continue to garden for as long as they are physically capable of doing so. Some of these fortunate young people also will discover their true passion and end up in agricultural related careers. More importantly, children who learn how to garden will be less dependent on others for the food they eat. Furthermore, those lucky enough to learn how to garden organically will live longer and healthier lives than those who are dependent on the produce produced by large agriculture enterprises which rely heavily on potentially toxic chemical fertilizers to grow the fruits and vegetables they sell to the masses. Finally, those that grow their own fruits and vegetables will be consuming produce that is far more flavorful and tasty than that sold at the local food store. When all is said and done, those lucky enough to have well versed in the skills of organic gardening will lead healthier, happier and more fulfilling lives than those who grow up with no gardening skills. It also is possible that the knowledge of gardening fundamentals may be the difference between living and dying of starvation for those who are alive 60 to 70 years from now. If the proponents of climate change are correct, this world will be a far different place by the end of the twenty first century. If so, those who know how to grow their own fruits and vegetables, and are less dependent on the government and agribusiness for their food, will have a significant advantage over those who do not have basic gardening skills. Although it may be impractical for large inner city schools to provide the space for even a school garden of modest size, such is not the case in schools located in the suburbs wherein there usually is abundant space for gardens of any size. Although the children participating in school gardening projects may require some teacher supervision, there is little or no reason for such gardening projects to be a financial burden for the schools who elect to foster them. Members of local garden clubs and other retired persons in the community are eager to share their gardening skills with young people who want to experience the joy of gardening.

Continuing Down The Path To Insolvency.

When I wrote America In Decline two years ago I described in some detail the reasons for America's fall from grace over the past 70 or so years. During the 24 short months since its publication we have continued down the path of self destruction, seemingly having learned nothing our past flirtation with runaway socialism. As most of you know, our national debt now exceeds $ 18 trillion and is increasing at a rate $500 billion each and every day. I maintain that no living person, not even Einstein if he were still alive, would have the mental capacity to comprehend the magnitude of a figure this large; however, here are some recent statistics that we all can understand, the implications of which, I think you will agree, are extremely worrisome. As George Will recently pointed out, social welfare programs absorbed 24 percent of the federal budget in 1963, the year when our national monetary policy really began to unravel; such programs now exceed 60 percent of our inflated federal budget. In fact, anti-poverty expenditures are now double those of social security. Can you see where this is inevitably heading? Still not convinced? The Great Society's (a colossal misnomer if there ever was one) 50 year "War on Poverty" to date has cost $22 trillion, most of it barrowed. During this half century of fiscal and social insanity our population grew by 69 percent while the numbers of those on food stamps increased by 168 percent. At this point, 60 percent of the population are on some form of food assistance and our leaders think nothing of it! But I harp too much on the enormity of national resources squandered on the governmental policies of Johnson and the liberal idiots who followed him. The real cost to our nation is not the in monies that have been wasted on the re-distributive programs promoted by those who stay in power by periodically buying the votes of the illiterate low IQ masses. Rather, I would argue, it is the very destruction of our social fabric that is the most worrisome aspect of the failed fiscal policies of our political leaders, both democrat and republican. The self-serving political mandates of our criminally inclined politicians have literally brought our country to its knees! When all is said and done, we are left with cycles of increasing multi-generational dependency, illiteracy, increasing illegitimacy (7 percent then, 41 percent now) and a staggering increase in criminality, especially in minority communities of blacks and Chicanos. Finally, and perhaps the most galling statistic of all, is the issue of income inequality which is many times worse now than it was when the country was led by fiscally responsible public servants and our laws and mandates were based on sound moral and religious principles that have evolved over the eons that man has walked the face of the earth. Yes, we are now fiscally insolvent, more importantly we are morally bankrupt!

Excerpt From America In Decline

America is in decline and has been for over six decades, of that that there can be little doubt. The reasons for our countries' economic and moral decay are detailed in part I of this book. In part 11, I will suggest steps, short of a second revolution, that should be taken to rescue our floundering ship of state. Finally, in Part 111, I predict what is likely to occur if we do not have the courage to institute the changes required to restore the nation's economy and put its citizens back to work. I believe, as will become clear after reading the first few paragraphs of America In Decline, that the decreasing cognitive ability of our citizens over the past half century has played a major role in the America's fall from greatness. Our failure to recognize the importance of intellect, especially the concept of inherited cognitive ability, is largely responsible for most of Americas social and economic woes. Throughout the book I rely heavily on statistics gleamed from Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray's masterpiece The Bell Curve to support the common sense observations made during my lifetime with respect to intelligence, illegitimacy, race and a host of other social and economic issues that plague today's American society. The Bell Curve is a must read for anyone who wishes to understand the reasons for our countries declining economic prospects and moral decay. In this respect, I consider The Bell Curve to be the single most important book of the last 150 years, possibly of all time. The reader may be surprised by some of my suggestions for improving our economy, especially those that come squeaky close to unadulterated socialism. Nonetheless, for reasons that will be made clear in the pages of this book, we will have to accept the fact that social policy, at least in the near term, will have to include some measures to redistribute the country's wealth from the haves to the have-nots. The redistribution need not be as large as it is presently and certainly must not be allowed to grow, but, for the nation to function in something other than utter chaos, those who wash our floors, pick our fruit and care for our children must be paid a living wage. To do otherwise is amoral, uncivilized and, most importantly, from a nationalistic point of view, self-destructive. For example, if our nation is to survive as a viable economic force, we must rebuild the manufacturing base in America. This goal can only be met if we place stiff tariffs on goods that are made in faraway countries where humans work for a few dollars a day under near slave labor conditions. The price of the goods we buy at the local retail store should reflect their cost of manufacture in the USA where workers receive a decent living wage and not what they would cost if produced by slave labor in a third world country like Indonesia. Not to recognize that we must pay intellectually challenged members of our society a living wage for making, for example, a pair of tennis shoes, will only lead to further economic unrest and a proliferation of the antisocial behavior that is undermining the moral fiber of the nation. The most important of the changes championed herein include the elimination of illegal immigration; steps to reduce the rate of illegitimacy; measures to curtail welfare; and, most importantly, a major effort to restore the work ethic in the American worker. Many of the bitter pills and unpleasant remedies suggested will be hard for the politicians on both sides of the isle to swallow, but they will not be able to refute any of the suggested remedies with any reasonable argument. For example, you cannot expect people to work if there are no jobs and you cannot expect people to get married and start a family if they are paid to remain single and have their children out of wedlock. The results of the liberal policies which have been instituted over the past 60 years have been a disaster for all but a privileged few of our citizens, primarily those who were lucky enough to have been born smart or very smart. Because of the misguided social policies of the liberal establishment, to many of those who were less lucky in life's genetic role of the dice, now lead meaningless unfulfilling lives as ward's of the state. To rob a person of the dignity that can be achieved by having a job and working, is about as un-American as it gets! To resolve the socioeconomic mess in which we find ourselves, the nation will have to abandon the failed strategies of the liberal social engineers and return to the capitalist policies that made the United States the economic powerhouse it was in the early 1900s, before the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Roosevelt may have been the most destructive of our presidents because he took us off the gold standard and by so doing make unlimited deficit spending possible; but, one could argue that the social policies of Johnson's great society were equally damaging because they led to the breakup of the black family and turned millions of potential black husbands and fathers into homeless vagabonds and career criminals. To restore America's greatness, we must take steps to curtail the welfare state that has evolved over the past sixty years. To achieve this goal the government should initiate policies that will create private sector jobs for those who wish to work and insist that able bodied males take those jobs when they become available. Females who chose to work outside the home must be provided the same opportunity as their male counterparts; however, tax policies should be enacted that encourage mothers to stay at home during their children's formative years rather than forcing them to work to support their families, as is now to often the case. No one can reasonably argue that many of the social problems we are facing today are not the result of the fact that it now takes two paychecks to support most families whereas when I was growing up in the 1940s it took only one. If we have learned one thing over the past 60 years it is that children do better when they are raised by their mothers and not by a nanny or, worse yet, members of a federal or state bureaucracy. It also is becoming increasingly apparent that they do better if they are home schooled, but that is subject matter for a future book. Finally in Part 111, I discuss the predictable consequences of inaction. If we, the people, do not rise up and take our country back, America will become, at best, a third world socialist country like Greece or, at worst, a puppet state of China. Unlike Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, who seem to believe that Americans ultimately will wake up and throw the bums out, I do not think the necessary changes in public policy can be accomplished at the polling booth. No, it will take something more than a change of heart by the voters to cast out the entrenched liberals and rhino republicans who gave us the socialistic policies which have turned our country into an amoral debtor nation. When all is said and done, like it or not, we are facing the prospects of a second American revolution. Hopefully, it will not be as bloody as the first one.