TRR classroom

Thoughtful reader David wrote in with this interesting tidbit of trivia. I have to confess, I've never heard this before.....

Manure: In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship and it was also before commercial fertilizer's invention, so large shipments of manure were common.

It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water (at sea) hit it, it not only became heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by product is methane gas. As the stuff was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen.

Methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOOOM!

Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was determined just what was happening.

After that, the bundles of manure were always stamped with the term 'Ship High In Transit' on them, which meant for the sailors to stow it high enough off of the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not
touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane.

Thus evolved the term ' S.H.I.T ', (Ship High In Transport) which has come down through the centuries and is in use to this very day.

You probably did not know the true history of this word.

Neither did I.

I had always thought it was a golfing term.

"Golfing term".....that David, he's a regular comedian.

Disclaimer: I apologize for any hurt feelings, offended sensibilities, or blah, blah, blah......it's history, deal with it.

Reader comments

Alert reader freedom2learn wrote in regarding the participation of the U.S. in the abysmal, despotic collection of thugs and tyrants known as the United Nations...

Does the US want the UN having (increasing) power that we have no control over at all?

When did the US get involved with
the UN?

Was this woman's story[Teddy Bear named Mohammed] highly publicized?

Firstly, the U.S. signed on to the UN in San Francisco in 1945 following the end of WWII, along with all the other countries. It was devised as a collective body to diffuse conflicts between countries before they erupt into world war. It's a nice concept if that's all it did, but you and I know better. Let's assume for a minute that countries were willing to surrender their sovereignty to the UN, which we won't do but just for argument's sake, the UN resolutions are non-binding, meaning you don't have to comply if you don't want to. Without the teeth of enforcement, what's the point? Gulf wars I and II were begun because the US had to be the teeth of enforcement on behalf of the UN. And we were willing to be the teeth of the UN because it was America the terrorists were/are targeting. Over the years the UN has devolved into a bickering collection of self-serving representatives who're corrupt to the core. The Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, the largest scandal in the history of the world in terms of dollars, was administered by Kofi Annan himself, his son, the French, Germans, and others at the UN. Yet the US taxpayer continues to be mugged into underwriting the activities of the crooks under UN protection.

To answer the first question: if you are a multinationalist like Hillary and other democrats, you think the U.S. is too powerful and it's not fair that we are so rich and others are so poor by comparison. The idea of a world government overseeing a socialist utopia in which wealth is taken from those who earn it and given to other countries who didn't, is the stuff of your fondest dreams. In short, yes, liberals would cede sovereignty of the US over to the UN and would submit to it's will. The thought of that makes me vomit a little bit in my mouth. It should do that for anyone who truly loves this country.

Question 3: She was arrested a few months ago but the story didn't reach the news services until her sentence was announced. Curiously, the biggest defenders of womens' rights, N.O.W., is refusing to even comment on it. For the same reason Pat Ireland and the gals over at NOW sided with Bill Clinton in the face of multiple rape and harrassment accusations by numerous women, politics is the true trump card for feminists, not womens' rights. Right now, Muslims are the darlings of the media and as such, they can do no wrong. Just like Bill Clinton, as long as he advanced the abortion agenda, he could/and did literally get away with rape in the eyes of the gals at NOW.

I hope that helped freedom.

Reader Mail

Thoughtful reader Freedom2Learn writes in and asks, "Is Ron Paul worthy of a mention? I'm curious as to what your gang thinks.

I don't have a lot of time to participate on your blog, but I at least skim it daily - I learn a lot - very interesting!"

Well thanks for stopping by Freedom. I always enjoy your comments and I think you should dive in more often.

Here's my take on Ron Paul: That he's a libertarian tells you most of what you need to about his positions on the issues...he believes in the supreme rights of the individual, limited government meddling in our lives, a reactionary military rather than a pre-emptive one, and basically the right of the individual to pursue happiness in any way, both personal and economic, that doesn't obstruct any other individual from pursuing happiness. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Actually, most conservatives fall into that category too, though they won't admit it. The big difference between Ron Paul and rank-and-file republicans is that he doesn't wish to legislate morality as do Bush, Rove, and others.

That's the basic question you have to ask yourself about the republican and libertarian parties.

That being said, the Libertarian party is a marginal party and you could say that voting for Ron Paul is a wasted vote or a vote not cast against Hillary. On the other hand, a purist would say voting your beliefs, regardless of chances of winning, is as useful as voting for a major party candidate. Because if enough people do that, other major candidates start to take notice the next time around, and compete for those votes by embracing the principles those voters respond to. To reflexively vote for republicans just re-enforces the dreadful big-government policies they have embraced. The point is that your vote counts regardless for whom it is cast.

Bottom line, the longer Ron Paul stays in the race, putting his ideas out there, and getting financial support for them, the more the other candidates will take notice and move in the libertarian direction in order to win those votes. To me, that can only be a good thing.