A lack of pretense

 Yesterday I posted a " quotation " for lack of a better description. It could be called an axiom but that seems a bit pretentious. Whatever label you wish to apply I posted " the absence of pretense breeds contempt. " After reading a few comments I have decided that perhaps I should explain my reasoning for such a statement. On the surface we do think of pretense as a bad thing. It is , after all, an attempt to deceive. But the thing is that pretense also acknowledges the action or behavior as being correct. For what other reason would one pretend ? The total rejection of a societal norm, complete disobedience, is contempt. And so I say, the absence of pretense breeds that contempt.
 If the individual goes to the effort of pretending that can only be because they wish to avoid detection. That is the acknowledgement of the validity of the action. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, isn't that what they say ? If you pretend to follow those rules or norms you are saying they are correct. The removal of any pretense also removes that acknowledgement. Then you can only be in contempt ! Just as in a court of law, refusing to follow or acknowledge the courts ruling places you in contempt. Silently acquiescing to the courts ruling, even when you do not agree, is a form of pretense.
 It may seem a strange thing to encourage the act of pretense,to support a deceptive practice. I am not supporting the deception but rather the action. It is my thought that at the very least practicing a deception may become a habit. That habit then becomes your actions which are correct. Eventually you come to adopt the deception as the natural course of action. We are taught the societal norms in just such fashion. The things we do in " polite " company are not the same as we may do in a more private setting. In fact any deviation from those societal norms we call a perversion. A strong word implying what ? A deviation, a deviant. All words considered condemning in there implications. All of those actions are in contempt to society. Contempt can be seen no other way, than as defiance. Therefore the absence of pretense breeds contempt. Contempt is defiance. Defiance leads to unrest.
 It is this train of thought that I followed when I asked myself, just what is wrong with some people today ? Some have given up even pretending to be good and moral people. They are openly defying social conventions. What is most troubling is they are changing the laws of that same social convention. These changes are becoming the accepted conventions. It is those changes that trouble folks of my generation and mindset. I do believe in certain axioms. I further believe that each of us live by our own set of truths. When others openly display contempt for those beliefs it generates friction. Where is the " pretense " of courteous " patronization " that was afforded in years past ? Now it is gone and replaced with outright contempt. A new " declaration " of independence foreign from the one I am familiar with. A declaration based on what is best for me and not the society as a whole. And it is banally so. The new independence is an independence from morality and virtuous behavior. They are abandoning any pretense to such behaviors as well. The point being, if you do not practice such behaviors you will not develop the habit of acting in that manner. The absence of pretense breeds contempt ! With contempt comes upheaval. At least that is my observation and explanation for my statement.   

The big idea

 The problem is a common ideology. That is what is lacking in the country today. I believe that is a necessary component to any functioning society. The United States began with that common ideology but we have strayed a great deal from the core. That core was the belief in a " higher power " than man. It was that power that endowed us with certain inalienable rights. We began with that premise and wrote our founding documents upon that. But just what is that ideology ? That is where it begins to get dicey, in the explanation.
 Definition: An ideology is a set of cultural beliefs, values, and attitudes that underlie and justify either the status quo or movements to change it. The culture of every social system has an ideology that serves to explain and justify its own existence as a way of life. Ideology can also underlie movements for social change, which rely on sets of ideas that explain and justify their purpose and methods.
 I'm certain you can see the problem here. Our founding ideology is based upon Christian values and traditions. That is the central core. Our laws and actions are based in that. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 affirms that “the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality, and . . . these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality.”  What ? Imagine any politician stating that fact today. Yet, there it is written down in the Massachusetts constitution. Know who wrote it ? John Adams. A familiar figure to us all. And what is he saying there ? He states the " ideology " or set of ideas to explain and justify the purpose and methods of society. That seems clear enough to me anyway. And it is that very ideology that we are attempting to remove from the American society as a whole.
 Civil government depends upon, piety, religion and morality. That is what it says. So what is piety ? We tend to think of it as a religious person, often perceived to be insincere. It can also be a point of view that is accepted without thinking as conventional reverence. That is to say, we should acknowledge the existence of God. What is religion ? Religion is the practice of worshipping. Lastly we need morality. Where are those morals derived ? From our religion and belief in God. These are self evident. That is another familiar phrase often misunderstood.
 Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
 That is also from the Massachusetts constitution. An ideology clearly stated. Remarkable in its' choice of phrasing wouldn't you say ? It does not say God, Jesus, Mohamed or Jehovah, rather it says the great creator and supreme being. He is clearly stating the " idea " of a higher power. The point being we must acknowledge that that power exists ! We are free to worship as suits our conscious, but we have a duty to do so. It is also a right.
 I would agree that the conversation has changed somewhat from 1870 when that document was ratified. Our ideology has changed over the course of time. Provisions were incorporated to facilitate those very changes. It is the abandonment of the ideology as a whole that is most troubling. Our political figures and civic leaders are often criticized for professing what we once declared to be truth. There is a higher power and we, as a society, indeed as a nation, are bound to acknowledge that. With that acknowledgement we are bound to the moral and ethical values of that same ideology ! If we now decide that it is just an idea, a possibility, the whole system collapses. And that is the problem, what is the common ideology ? What is the next big idea ?

Entitled

 I hear much talk of free education. First and foremost, nothing is free. We have all paid taxes to fund public education, ever since there was an America. In the early days each town was responsible for that. They built the schoolhouse, purchased the books ( slates ) and paid the teacher. Eventually the government became involved. Once you start receiving funds from the public treasury regulations begin to be imposed. They may be insignificant at first but government, especially the federal government can become an insidious intruder. As evidence I present , " the common core. " Common as in, for all. It does conjure up the image of a socialist program. I can see no other way of viewing it. Common teaching methods and common testing requirements. One size fits all. Free ? Well it does come at a cost. Is education the business of government ? No, I don't believe it should be. Can one purchase an education ? Nope, you have to earn that. That is unless you consider buying those advanced degrees on the internet, which is quite possible. Commerce shall not be impeded but minor details.
 Education is an investment in yourself and your future. You hear that all the time. There is much truth to that statement. As with most investments it does require capital. It has to be paid for. Using funds from the public treasury to finance your ambitions however is not a function of government. Debt incurred by you, for your benefit, is your responsibility to repay. You wish for an advanced degree and believe I should finance that. I want a better car or larger house, should you finance that ? Both are wants. The argument that you " need " that degree to be successful in life is belied by a simple fact. Approximately 78% of the current population of the United States do not have a degree. Can we say, that 78% of the population is unsuccessful ? I don't think so. So what separates the two ? Is it merely opportunity and chance ? Perhaps it is desire and ambition. Where there is a will there is a way. For those that lack the funds to attend that prestigious college or university of their choice the path to that degree will be more difficult, same as if I wish to drive a Rolls Royce. Should I be able to borrow the money and not have to repay that debt ? Should the public treasury just provide me with those funds ? What is the difference between the two ? Both are for the benefit of the individual not the public good ! Or are we going to climb that ivory tower and say, the more educated we are, the better citizen we become. Are we saying that by financing those that want a degree we are improving our society ? How so ? Is it because we feel entitled ? Why should you feel that you are entitled to that education more than my feeling I'm entitled to a better car ? An entitlement is not a right but a special privilege or treatment. And that is at the core of this thinking, entitlement.
 It has become an increasingly prevalent notion this idea of entitlement. That each of us should receive special treatment or privileges. It is an interesting contrast with other social idioms. The biggest one of those being, the upper ten percent. We are upset that they enjoy what is perceived to be special treatment and privilege, the very thing we wish to eradicate. That is because if I have to borrow money, and then pay that money back, it just isn't fair. I'm entitled to an education. No, you are not. You are free to pursue your educational interests just as I am free to pursue the purchase of that automobile. If everyone is entitled to the same thing that is called socialism. Who benefits the most from socialism ? Not the individual, that much is certain. The fact is individual achievements are not rewarded and as a result a lack of motivation may be the result. The bottom line for me is this, each of us can reach our educational goals if that is what we genuinely desire. The road is there. It may not be an easy ride. That doesn't mean I have to buy you a Rolls Royce to get there anymore than you have to buy me, well, a Rolls Royce. One only becomes entitled by earning that entitlement ! We are born with three inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Everything else must be earned.
 Consider this, if everyone is to be given a free college education, how many will choose to get a job or join the military after high school ? I'm 18, what do you think I'm going to do ? So, how do we determine who gets to attend and who does not ? We rely upon what ? The government to establish regulations and standards that must be followed. The administration of the program is going to cost how much ? Don't forget that everyone is " entitled " and so how to exclude the moochers without appearing, gasp, prejudicial ? I'm going to college, that is paid for, but now I have to eat and need housing. Shouldn't I also be entitled to that ? And make sure it isn't substandard according to government policy. You're probably going to have to increase my entitlement. I'm entitled to entertainment as well and some spending money. Sounds like a familiar program doesn't it ? Free housing, free food, free education and you are rewarded for making the same poor life choices over and over. Yeah, that's a plan alright. I'm going to college, where is my EBT card ? Oh and when I graduate I will require a starting salary of at least 80,000 because well, I'm entitled to that.

determination of worth

 There are subjects I hesitate to bring up for fear of alienating my audience. First off, I think it is an amazing thing to have an audience. I am thrilled that there are those reading my words and thoughts on a fairly regular basis. I do think I know my demographics even without a marketing firm crunching the numbers. Well, I do have twenty two " followers " according to google. That's practically a cult in my book ! Why, it's a movement. But with a following comes a responsibility. It is that way with everything in life, it's not all fun and games. People can get hurt ! This paragraph is my attempt at satire. It does hold one truth and that is there are subjects I am hesitant to broach.
 The subjects that fall into that category are the ones of no consequence. That is to say, they really don't make a difference. Perhaps it is your fashion sense or model of car you prefer. I have an opinion on those things but does it matter ? Only to me and that is the point. If the subject doesn't effect others in a significant way why bring it up ? The real question in my mind is, are these small things indicators of greater changes ? Is that why we often wish to bring them up for discussion or ridicule. Things that are different or have changed over time can be disturbing. That is what the generational thing is all about. Small indicators of change. To some it is the " chicken little " syndrome. I do think it holds some validity though. We express ourselves in many ways, with our dress, music, literature, movies and even politics. The latest fad and fashion will not always foretell tomorrows norm, but it may. Once the wall is breached the tide flows in.
 The other side of this is I don't like the feeling of being confined. I am all for free discussion on any subject or observation. I understand that some people are easily offended and read into things. The problem being they sometimes skip pages and head right to the conclusion. That's when things get messy. Believe me I can get " passionate " about just about any thing. I calm down just as quickly. My shortcoming is that I will defend my position to the last. Like a dog with a bone I will just chew it up ! Sometimes I'll bury that bone, but it will get dug up again at some point ! And so I struggle with that. I sometimes feel the urge to uncover those old bones even though I know I shouldn't. There is something to be said about letting a sleeping dog lie. If I want to profess free discussion, I must practice free discussion. I need to take that chance. Wake up the dog and dig up the bone ! One must be willing to sacrifice for their passion. The only requirement necessary is the determination of worth. Isn't that the premise of sacrifice ? An offering in exchange for a reward. Do I wish to write my thoughts and observations in the hope of gain ? What is that gain ? What am I willing to sacrifice for that gain ? Those are questions worthy of thought. Questions I will have to consider carefully, a meditation. If there is nothing to be gained, is the action worth doing ? There are times when it is best to do nothing at all.

avoiding guilt

 One of the more effective methods to get people to do what you wish them to do is, guilt them into it ! It's a tried and true technique. We laugh about it but the church, particularly the Catholic church has been doing just that for centuries. Call it a moral appeal if you will. The premise is a simple one, appeal to a persons sense of compassion and combine it with the threat of eternal damnation, and boom, they will comply. Most will make a showing or agreement for your cause at the very least. You could say it is the basis for religion ! You would be wrong and you could be misled. Religion is practiced for personal benefit not to aid another in their cause. That is a big distinction. You guilt someone to influence them to act or react in a certain fashion according to your agenda. You pray to your God for intervention in your life, or perhaps to help others. The acceptance of God is not an acceptance of compliance with a standard, but a epiphany.
 We are seeing movement away from religion and religious beliefs. The removal of religion is also the removal of guilt. Religion embodies morals and humanitarian conduct. Remove the religion and what is left to appeal to ? What is the punishment for not complying with those moral and ethical behaviors ? The laws of man ? Those laws can be changed, modified and justified in accordance with the whims of man. We see that all the time. Many wave the banner of " freedom " as justification for these very actions. I also see the veiled threats from those that practice their religions. Some are as innocuous as " don't scroll past without typing Amen"  and others are explicit in the consequences of failing to adhere to a religious principle. They all serve the same purpose, to cause guilt. Don't ignore, or How can you , are the usual opening lines. The hope is to appeal to your inner sense of what is right and wrong.
 Why is it that we use religion as a tool ? That is because man will use anything to his advantage as long as it stands to benefit him personally. Sound cynical ? It is and I wouldn't deny that but it also holds a great deal of truth. Throughout history individuals and indeed entire nations have used a religion to support their ideologies. This continues to this very day. Now, the deception is to try to remove religion altogether from the discussion. If we can remove religion, we can remove guilt and the subsequent remorse associated with it. We have a term for that person or group of people that can do that, we call them " Pathological . " They are mentally disturbed. The ones that wish to remove religion from the discussion really just want justification for their actions. They are being told that they are wrong. They do not feel guilt or experience any empathy for others. They have no religion and dismiss others. As I said, " Pathological. " It is a mental condition.
 I do believe we are all born with an innate sense of right and wrong. This is evidenced in small children. All one has to do is watch them. They know nothing of color, race, disabilities or anything else in their interactions. Those behaviors are learned later on, from the society in which they are raised. They are taught what " toys " are theirs and what belongs to others. Shortly after learning that, they begin to learn how to get what belongs to others. Some will just take it, and others will manipulate the situation to have the item " shared " with them. Passive and aggressive. The motivation to continue to do what we innately know to be right we have labeled, religion. It sometimes appears to be in opposition to what is the more convenient or financially beneficial action for us on a personal level. Some will abandon the right in favor of the profitable way. Some will falsely say, their is no God, and therefore I do not have to do what I know to be right. I was born defective ! I have now progressed to the point where I can dismiss those inherit values and replace them with mans values. And the result lies before us. There is a word for that as well, Anarchy. The denial of authority. There is an authority in the universe. A creator. Label this any way that pleases you but that authority exists. The authority resides within each of us. It is the individual realization that life is best lived in accordance with the authority we were given at birth that is the epiphany we seek. Religion is just a means to an end. All religions are a means to an end.
 The removal of religion will not negate the consequences of guilt. The price will be paid. Will it be for an eternity ? Yes, I believe it will. Spending an eternity in shame and sorrow would be hell. It will be your own guilt that condemns you. If I am doing what I feel to be correct, I feel no guilt for those actions. I feel no requirement to find justification for my actions in words written by man. The truth is written upon my heart. They were there when I was born, I only need to read them. The difficulty lies in practicing those truths. Do that and you avoid guilt !

name and address

 I have explored this thought in the past but was reminded of it once again. As I was talking to Mom, who is 86 now, she began to call me Benny. She hasn't called me that in many years now. Now, her mind and memory are just fine so I can't blame it on old age. I just wonder what brought that on. Nostalgia ? But whatever the reason It did remind me. I have thought what if I had kept using that name, Benny. It is what I was called throughout my childhood and through high school. I only began using Ben after joining the Navy. I expect that is because Ben sounds more " macho " than Benny. I don't know why that should be so because I knew a man named Benny. He was a butcher ! Now that's a macho kinda job. You don't get much more macho than cutting up dead animals. But I digress. It is this idea of a name that intrigues me. My given name is Austin, a name very few have ever called me. Mostly it has been new teachers that just read a name off their list. I always corrected them immediately, I was Benny. To my Mom, little Ben. To my father, Bubba.
 First impressions are made with your name. I think we would all agree on that. Benny is different than Ben. You can just hear the difference. It is that feminine Y that is the culprit. Like Billy and Bill or Dan and Danny. Most just drop that Y as soon as we get older. I'm Ben ! But what if I had stayed Benny or used the name I was given, Austin ? Would it have changed my life ? I'm thinking it may have only in regard to the way others would have reacted to me. We all like to think of ourselves as independent but we do react to others. If those others treated us differently isn't it safe to assume we would have reacted differently ? It is in the reaction that things may have changed. I guess a psychologist would have an explanation for this. For me, I wanted to be like Dad and Dad was Ben. Big Ben is what he was called to distinguish him from Little Ben. You see, little Ben only existed outside of my family and close friends. To those that knew my parents or my siblings casually that is what I was called. I didn't like it then and still don't like to be called, little. Funny how that bothers me, well back to the shrink ! I will never be Big Ben so I settled on Ben.
 I do think we have different names during different parts of our lives. Those names are either given to us or we just start introducing ourselves with that name. I was never given a nick-name. The closet thing to that was my best friends' Dad calling me Bouncin' Benny for the way that I walk. Apparently I had a bit of a bounce in my step. Very few people ever called me that so I don't think it qualifies as a nick name. What is interesting with the introduction of this social media is you can start using any name you want, without question. Social media is a whole new world. Yes your true identity can be discovered should someone wish to do so but most of us just take folks at their word. Well at least until we have reason to do otherwise. So, if I wanted I could start using any name I wanted. I could add a string of letters after it and lead folks to believe I have qualifications and skills I do not. I guarantee you they would respond quite differently to my postings than they would as Ben. But, I'm not interested in social experimentation. What I was reminded of is, I am Benny. Little Ben. Or at least I was at one point in time. Does that change really ? Yes I think it does and we don't get to choose. We can only react to the situation.
 I do find it interesting how when I am called Benny by old friends and classmates it makes me smile. That name has a familiar ring to it. It transports me back in time. I remember that guy. He is still around just goes by a different name. That is the hope anyway. Benny was a pretty good guy. He tried hard to be a tough guy at times but was just reacting to the times. Didn't we all ? The name we use or are assigned must be viewed in the context of time and place. I expect if I were born into a wealthy and prominent family I would have been Austin. At least in 1953 I would have been. You didn't hear that name often. Today Austin's' are run of the mill. I know a couple besides myself !
 The way we address each other makes a difference. When I was younger we addressed each other in a more formal manner, based on age and perceived position in society. Consider this, my Doctor was Dr. Abel and I never knew his first name. I went to school with his daughter and still didn't know that information. I don't know the first name of many of my teachers. Adults were Mr. and Mrs. always ! Saying sir or miss was everyday, never hey you or some other disrespectful greeting. Maybe it we returned to that, addressing each other with a bit more courtesy and respect we would all get along better. The reaction would be different that much I know. The name we use to address each other causes each of us to react in either a positive or negative fashion. It something we do on a subconscious level.

Sprig

 Every once and awhile a memory sneaks out and fills your thoughts for no apparent reason. Nothing happened to jog that memory it just appears. That very thing happened to me yesterday in the way of a man. I knew him as Sprig Gardner. His full name was Frank " sprig " Gardner. I wasn't aware of it at the time but he is considered the father of wrestling on Long Island. I googled his name and was surprised to read of his many accomplishments. There is even a large tournament named for him. The article called him a legend ! Well, I just knew him as a kind man with a love of fishing and wrestling. I knew more about the fishing part though.
 The years have dimmed some of the details but I can see the inside of his home. I can't remember exactly the road it was on but it was close to the bay. The house sat close to the road and the door entered the kitchen. The kitchen was long but narrow. Leaving the kitchen you entered the main room of the house. It may have been a camp originally I can't say for sure. There was a screened porch on the front side. As I remember there was one bedroom and a bath. Mr. Gardner, Sprig, as my Mom called him, was a confirmed bachelor. My Mom cleaned his house and washed his clothes when he was in town. The most striking feature of this home was the pictures on the walls. There was a least a hundred of them. There were all the same, black frame and a wrestling team in the photo. You know the type, those stock photographs. Sprig could tell you every name and face in those many pictures. Those wrestling teams were his passion. They were his legacy.
 I, along with my brothers, would sometimes accompany my mother when she went to Mr. Gardners house to deliver his laundry. If he was there he would always speak to us children. All of us kids spent the night at Mr. Gardners house one time or another. He just loved kids and teaching. That was the thing with him, he taught you stuff while you were there. Being the youngest I didn't have many opportunities to " spend the night " but can remember doing so at least once. I remember Mr. Gardner teaching me to tie two pieces of monofilament fishing lines together with a special knot technique. I still use that knowledge to this day. He had a way of talking to you that made you want to listen. He was a man you could trust, without question. Today, sadly, we hear all too often about predators and such, but we didn't know anything about any of that. That thought never entered our consciousness. Mr. Gardner was just that, Mr. Gardner a man of obvious success and great wisdom. He was, after all, a teacher. All I knew was that he taught at a school " up the Island " a big school. I do remember him bringing my brothers and myself some sporting goods. A " real  official " football, like they used in college ! A first baseman's glove, a catchers glove and a fielders glove. I remember Mr. Gardner saying, just like any other job, you need the correct tool to do the job correctly. And you needed to practice, always practice.
 It was a good time to be a boy in the 1960's. It was even better because of where I lived. We had free roam of the town and the surrounding woods, bays and ocean. Yes you could say we were a bit isolated from the " real " world but I don't think of it that way. I lived where the world was the way it was supposed to be. Those that lived elsewhere were deprived. That other world was a scary place  that was best avoided. I read magazines like Boys' Life and Popular Mechanics. Mr. Gardner took me bass fishing on the bay and showed me how to use a " spinning reel " rig. A fairly new innovation. Well at least they gained in popularity after the war, (WW2 ) and was a new thing to me. And so I owe my ability to cast a line to Frank " sprig " Gardner of wrestling fame. He told me of being in the " war. " He was a Lt. He passed away in 1975 at home in East Hampton. I expect it was that same little cabin that I remember. I wonder what caused that memory to surface at this time. No matter, as long as he is remembered that is what is of importance. I'm certain as long as there is high school wrestling his name will be mentioned. Wonder where all those pictures went ? I hope they were saved somewhere by someone.

                                                                      

Frank " Sprig " Gardner

I called him a friend

In the first person

 What will be the artifacts of your life ? We can choose, or at the very least, influence what those objects may be. The final selection however is not ours to make. We all hope it to be the things we cherished the most. That is simply because we want those things to continue living. By being admired and retained their life does continue. I have things like that from my parents and grandparents. I also have objects that belonged to other ancestors of mine. Each one that I can assign to a specific individual holds special value to me. They are not always the things the person would have thought of. They may have been small and insignificant to them. It was their passing that gave those objects special value.
 I began thinking about this as I rediscovered some artifacts I have in the attic. These items came from a special Aunt and Uncle. Growing up they treated myself and my siblings with special regard. You see this aunt was unable to have children of her own. As a result after their passing the things they held dear were divided among a fortunate few. Yes, they had assigned a person to whom they wished to bequeath their property. It is the artifacts however that concern me. I was fortunate that I was sent some of those things that belonged to my aunt and uncle. I hold them dear in my heart, the aunt and uncle, and am grateful for the items I received. They are tucked safely away. I am thinking about what to do with those items later on. Yes, they are special to me but no one else in my immediate family knew those people. Not my wife or my children. And so I wonder to whom would I pass these artifacts ? Are they destined to wind up a curiosity ? Isn't that what we all wish to avoid ? No one wants to wind up an unknown, a mystery. I can certainly assign a name and date to those objects but the value ? How do you explain the significance ? Even I do not know the story behind these things. All I know is that they either belonged to them, or they were created by them. That my aunt did needlework I have first hand knowledge of. It is those things I cherish the most. I know she held those items in her hands and put her effort into their creation. That is the value there. The other things, those that were the property of my uncle hold value only because they were his. When I pass will all the value pass as well ? You would have to say so. Perhaps I should introduce those items to my children and grandchildren. Familiarity does add significance.
 I didn't mean for this to sound morbid. I don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon. It was just something that came to mind as I stumbled across those things. I realize I only have a very small portion of their things. Still I was struck with the thought that these few objects are the artifacts of their life as it pertains to me. They didn't get to choose those things however and it was left to another. The value in those objects is not diminished by that action. The question is, should you just leave your things unassigned, to be claimed by whomever ? Or would it be wiser to go around and tell what object should go to who. Families are notorious for fighting about that stuff.
 My feeling is that I will not assign any particular object of mine to anyone. I do not own anything of great monetary value and so don't have to worry about that. My thinking is the objects " claimed " by my passing will be " claimed " by the one who cherishes the memory, more than the object. It is that I am hopeful of. That is because memories can live forever, passed from generation to generation. The tradition of storytelling. Memories are always told in the first person !

Snow memories

 I do not remember the year but I remember the snow. It was the best snow ever ! It was not very deep, to my knees when I was a child. The most amazing thing about this snow was it had a hard crust. You could walk on that crust or use your sled. Any little hill or incline provided a place to slide. It was fantastic,
 As in keeping with the time I had a flexible flyer sled. All the kids had a flexible flyer although the flying saucer had made its' debut. Those saucers were aluminum back then and had two grab handles. I was never a fan of them as you had so little control. I lived very close to a great hill for sledding and that flexible flyer covered many a mile. We would clean and wax those runners, get a running start and just flop down. That year, the year of the hard snow, you only needed to lie down and push off. Down that hill I would go  and at the base make a sharp left hand turn. The turn was just for fun and reduced your speed. Then the walk back to the top and down again. Had many crashes on that hill as well. One sled I had the runners folded under during that sharp left turn as they bit into the crust. I went flying into a thorn bush ! Fortunately I was bundled up and the thorns didn't penetrate.
 When we weren't sliding down that hill we had another venue. There is a dirt road that ran through the woods behind my house. This road was a fire lane and so seldom traveled. It was a gradual grade but when the conditions were right you could slide for quite a distance. That year the sliding was exceptional, almost like a bobsled run. We picked up quite a bit of speed on that road and there was an " S " turn to navigate. We didn't have the high banking required to go through at speed and so would drag our feet to act as a brake. It didn't always work ! The problem really was that dirt lane was lined with trees. Anywhere you left the course you would hit a tree. What a fun time.
 I believe it was also the year we made a rather foolish choice. My brothers and I decided the hood of a 49 Studebaker champion would make a great toboggan. The hood ornament was missing and so left the hood nice and smooth up front. That hood came to a point and was rounded, we thought it would just plow straight ahead down that hill. Now that hood was quite heavy and large. We all pulled it up the hill and all piled on. Let's just say it wasn't our finest moment. Yes, we went down the hill, most of it anyway, but it wasn't a straight ahead thing. It was more like hold on for dear life ! The weight of that hood, combined with ours, on that hard packed ice , at this point, was a recipe for disaster. We survived the attempt but never tried that again. As far as I know that hood still lies at the foot of that hill, a curiosity for someone to discover. Just how did the hood of a 1949 Studebaker Champion get here ?
 That was all many years ago. Now I live in Caroline county Maryland where the land is flat ! There aren't many hills around here of any size. You can find man made elevations from septic systems or building a road, stuff like that but the incline will be short. No long grade to slide on around here. Lots of open land, clear of obstructions, farmers fields, flat as can be ! We don't usually get a significant amount of snowfall here anyway. A storm or two a year that comes and goes quickly. I don't think I could slide down those hills anymore, the ride was a rough one. I do have a sled though. It is not a flexible flyer but in that style. I use it for Christmas decoration but did haul the grandkids around on it one year. Like I said, no hills.
 I'll just sit inside today and look out the window and into my memory. I'll revisit my sledding days and building snow forts. Tried more than once to build an igloo. Came very close one year. Now if I only had the boots we used back then. They are the best. Perhaps some of you will remember them.

                                                                        

Surprised ?

 Do you like surprises ? I know, it all depends. Well they say a blizzard is heading my way and to get prepared. That lead me to think about what it would have been like in the old days, you know before any accurate prediction could be made. I can only think it was , surprise, you got two foot of snow ! It must have made life more exciting though. I've been hearing about this snow event that is almost certainly going to strike for last two days. I'm already tired of hearing about it. It is getting annoying.
I will very surprised if I remain housebound for a full day. What I mean is that a store isn't open that I can't reach. Oh, the selection at the store may not be as varied as I like but I'm certain food items will be available, along with beer and cigarettes !
 Before we had television and radio to receive the news of weather, we had the telegraph. That was how you got reports of the weather. It wasn't a prediction exactly, more of a reporting. It is something we take for granted now but it wasn't until the 1970's that we started using computer technology and Doppler radar to predict weather. Before any of that you just had to keep your weather eye out. Changes in the sky and cloud formations were the staple  of prediction. That along with an aching in your bones or your corn acting up ! Strange, this year I haven't seen a single wooly worm. I don't know how large that brown stripe around its' middle must be. I also didn't notice the squirrels acting up. Wonder if they have been notified ?
 All the stores are bustling. The store owners are pleased for now but will pay later. Sure sales are large now, but afterwards the stores will be empty for a few days. At least for the grocery stores it more or less balances out. The ones seeing the most benefit will be the hardware stores. Those " seasonal " items will fly out the door. Big ticket items too, like generators and snow blowers. My largest concern is the loss of electricity. My home is all electric ! No heat and can't cook is a bummer. Well even if it does it won't be for long. I'm quite certain I will survive. Can always sit in the car with the heat on. I know, that's not safe, but we sure did it when I was a kid.
 My grandson Mark has a birthday tomorrow. A birthday blizzard ! It will be something he will remember and tell his kids about. All of his soccer events have been canceled and so he isn't happy. Being fifteen he didn't want a party. If he is stuck inside with just his sister and Mom and Dad it really isn't going to be a good day for him. Surprise ! I probably won't see him for his birthday and that will be a first. The wife and I have been blessed to be with him every year for his special day. Well he is growing up and now a blizzard is the impediment to us being with him. I always figured he would be off to college before that happened.
 I'm as ready as I'm gonna get for this event. I think I would prefer it being a surprise. If we didn't know and rely upon these forecasts we would have already been ready. All this high tech prediction leads us to being overly confident. We aren't prepared. In the old days we knew that winter was coming and we prepared for that eventuality ! Now we look at it as a possibility. We have become complacent. Not a good thing when dealing with mother nature. She can be a bit cantankerous ! That could be said about our lives in general these days, we have become complacent. We are not prepared for the unexpected. We should be though, winter comes every year and spring will follow. Be safe out there and enjoy the storm.

Aribtrary ?

 I am growing increasingly annoyed by this new attitude in America. All I hear is whining ! Sounds like a bunch of spoiled little brats. This isn't fair, I didn't get, or I want. It is everywhere and in everything. It is nothing specific and I'm not saying that some are unfounded but it is just so unbecoming for a nation. I blame it on an increasing reliance upon government. We turn to government and the laws of man for answers and the result is this frustration. We have surrendered our independence. We surrendered that independence in the belief that we were making progress. It started at the local level and spread its' way to the national. Now we are obsessed with " correctness. " That is the perception, but the reality is we are attempting to form a society of arbitration. And that is what I am seeing, because in arbitration you plead your case. You may site law or human rights to reinforce your belief but you are pleading.
 I believe what is required is a set of standards. Everything can not be arbitrary or arbitrated ! The laws man makes are just that. They are agreed upon by the majority, or at least the authority, in a society. It really makes no difference whether that authority is Communists, Socialists, or Capitalists the laws are subject to arbitration. But I know a set of laws that are not. We all know those laws as they are an inherit part of our makeup. You can see that in action with little children. Prejudice and privilege are learned behaviors. Start with a simple premise that existed in this nation at its' founding and continued until sometimes in the 1960's. We are a Christian nation founded in Christian traditions and beliefs. Oh, but now that is subject to debate. The first amendment is thought to be arbitrary ! It doesn't appear that way to me however, I think it is quite clear. The establishment of a religion is the acknowledgment of religion ! That religion is Christianity ! And that is what they were saying, that Christianity shall not be the state religion. Why would they do that ? The reason is a simple one, the Church of England had abused the population using that very religion as an excuse to do so. That is because mans' law is indeed arbitrary even in the interpretation of the Bible. Our founders went on the hope that man would treat each other in a Christian fashion. Idealistic ? Absolutely, they had to be they were founding a new nation ! A nation like one never before created. They began by declaring certain truths to be self evident ! No arbitration required with those truths.
 Now just where we fell off the tracks I can't say. That we are off the track is without question. We need to quit the complaining and whining and get working on the solutions. The answers may not be pleasing to some. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted by all the noise. We do need to take a firm stand in defense of independence. And let me tell you this, you can't gain independence with the help of government ! Duh, government is the beast that is driving this downfall. Limited government was the idea. Just passing legislation to protect or approve behaviors to appease the electorate is not leading. It also does not make those actions appropriate or acceptable. If you find yourself at odds with the majority of the population there is probably a good reason for that. The goal in life is not to " get your way " but to contribute something positive. To get back on track will take a commitment. It is something that will have to be taught to succeeding generations. You know it isn't a popular answer but I know one, prayer. And just what is prayer ? A solemn request for help or guidance. It is my belief we all pray to the same God regardless of what you call him/her or whatever. That is the God that created man and gave us those truths that are indeed self-evident ! We need to return to those truths.     

somewhere in the middle

 There was a small news story yesterday that caught my attention. It was a proposal by the Secretary of the Navy to no longer call the midshipmen at the Naval Academy, midshipmen. No alternative names were given. The only statement given was that he felt it was time for the term to become more gender neutral. He didn't mention changing the name of man hole covers, or the man in the moon, but can that be far behind ? The story continued with interviews with people on the street. I will say they gave equal time to those that supported that change and those with common sense. One young lady in particular stuck me as especially misguided. She was obviously trying to sound intelligent in front of the television camera as she made this statement, " Yes, they should change it because we do not live in a binary society anymore, some people identify as gender neutral. " Sounds impressive doesn't it ? Problem is it is totally wrong. I'll explain.
 First off I am a firm believer in tradition. They have been called midshipman since the inception of the academy. The are called midshipman because of the part of the ship they were stationed. They were not below decks nor were they on the quarterdeck, they were amidships. But setting that part aside let's examine this idea that we do not live in a " binary " society. Binary means two. I have a news flash for that young lady we have two genders in the world, boys and girls ! The manner in which they choose to identify themselves is of no consequence, they are either, or. Regardless of personal identification or any so called " gender reassignment " they are one or the other. In fact, that is the reason they get " reassigned " to be the other gender. Two is the key here.
 If that isn't enough evidence allow me to present this idea. Wouldn't you say our society today is dominated by computers and computer technology ? I don't think that can be denied. All computers operate on what system ? The binary system ! Isn't that amazing. In a computer it is a series of zeroes and ones that makes the code work. You could look at it as switches being turned on and off. It is either right or wrong ! Man, may become confused and arrive at wrong answers but not computers. That is because of that simple premise, right and wrong. You couldn't use a system with a third response without the results then becoming arbitrary. This time four is four,  but next time it could be five, or ten or whatever !
 Does it make a difference what name we call someone ? As long as that name isn't disparaging however, I can't see the problem. Midshipman, postman, fireman and others are not disparaging terms but descriptive of the job the person does. If you tell me that is your occupation I'm fairly certain I can determine if you are a male or female. Even if I can't should that make a difference ? Does the use of the " man " suffix indicate the gender of the person ? No, not unless you are somehow fixated on that. Guess what, they even had girl cowboys ! Imagine that. Shouldn't this concept of gender neutrality be well, neutral ? That is to say, not making a big fuss over it. I think we are all well aware that in society today a woman can do any job that a man can, there are no restrictions. Just recently that does include combat ! Now that is gender neutrality.
 Bottom line is, we live in and require a binary system. There is right and wrong. Everything else is arbitrary. The largest impediment to man is the realization of what is right and wrong. Seems like that choice is arbitrary as well. Well, I think we all know what it is but it proves to be inconvenient in commerce and personal satisfaction. In another word, morality. Binary, 0 or 1 ? It is quite simple really, don't complicate things. Is being neutral making progress ? Is that what we should be striving toward ? Neutrality ? Or is it denial ?

The braggart and the baby

 Well apparently the Brits are at it again. They want to ban Donald Trump from their country because they don't like what he says. They didn't like what Americans had to say in 1775 either and started a war over it. They didn't mind so much when we went " over there " to help out against the Germans though. Nobody was complaining when he was going to invest millions of Yank dollars in Scotland. But I guess the Donald has gone too far with his concern for the Muslim problem. The English are offended ! They are arguing in their halls of Parliament about this vile man. Ban him ! Invite him ! Take him to the tower of London and chain him up. Speaks volumes though when an entire foreign nation is listening to what you say. In my opinion they are doing nothing more than lending a bit more credence to his rhetoric. It could lead to an awkward situation should the Donald become president, however unlikely that event is. I certainly hope ISIS doesn't do any bad stuff in England to prove Trump right in his assessment of the extremist groups out there. Talk about egg on your face.
 In other news the Oscars are being boycotted because of a lack of diversity. Ninety four percent of the members of the voting body are " old white people. " They are also Hollywood liberals. I know that's a broad statement to make but I'm quite certain the majority of the six thousand members are wealthy liberals. Will Smith, among others, say they are boycotting because for the second year in a row no " films or actors of color " received nominations. Did it occur to him that perhaps the members thought none were deserving ? Listen, just because you are a minority doesn't guarantee you a nomination or a win for that matter. Is it prejudice ? If so, how do you explain all the others " of color " that have received nominations or awards in the past. The number of voters in the Academy hasn't changed nor the members themselves that cast those votes. Were they prejudiced when those minorities won but became prejudiced over the last two years ? That doesn't seem likely. Not that I really care you wins or loses or receive nominations, I could care less, it is not my profession, but this boycott is coming across as a bunch of spoiled brats whining. News flash, your race does not guarantee nomination or awards. Whether a film or actor is that good is purely a subjective thing. I hear;  I didn't get a nomination, it must be prejudice ! Maybe you ain't that good, Bub ! It's just an opinion.
 I watched the news for " entertainment " this morning. I must say I was amused. The British are mad at Donald Trump and Will Smith is boycotting because he didn't get a nomination. The braggart and the Baby. With Trump it is just an amazing thing that he has generated so much interest. He has certainly started a conversation that many are uncomfortable with. A majority will just dismiss him as a distraction. I do think he will fall by the wayside eventually. Bucking the political establishment is an almost insurmountable task, even for a billionaire. Will Smith and his minions may have a valid argument to make but come off looking foolish. Really, you are going to boycott because you are not nominated. I didn't get a " star " on my paper. That's not fair, I'm a minority. The cause is what ? To receive a nomination or an award that holds what value ? Are you making the film for that purpose ?  I demand that you tell me you love me ! Didn't Sally Field already do that bit ? She didn't boycott though, all the years she wasn't recognized. I'm betting she thought she should have been nominated or won long before she actually did. That is called having a little class. Some would even say, pride. My advice to Will Smith and his bunch, show a little class. Walk into the event with your head held high and take satisfaction in the accomplishments of your fellow actors. To " force " the issue is to cheapen the result. This not a boycott, this a bullying ! I'm taking my ball and going home.

fueling the passion

 When we are really interested in something we say we are passionate about it. It is continued interest that fuels the passion. I think interest may be sparked by our own curiosity, that starts the fire, but the fuel necessary to sustain that passion is the interest of others. We must receive that or the fire dies down. It may remain and just smolder for years. Occasionally a little fuel may be added and result in a flare up. That is the case with me anyhow. I know that it isn't that way with others. I admire those that can pursue their interest regardless of what others think or say. I do not understand how they keep the fire going without that external fuel. Is the inability to do that a lack of security on my part ? A psychoanalyst may arrive at that conclusion. I can see that but wouldn't agree. I think positive feedback is a requirement for success. The difference may be how you measure success.  Are you doing the action for your own benefit, or for the acceptance of others. I'm not talking about acceptance of you personally, but acceptance of your work or interest. I enjoy creating things, whether they are woodworking projects or literary works. I enjoy them more when others enjoy them along with me. It is that reciprocity of enjoyment that fuels my passions.
  Finding the balance between arrogance and self confidence. That is what I am talking about here. My upbringing was focused upon those qualities. The arrogant folks were not admired where I came from. One was to avoid appearing so at all costs. Self confidence was a thing to posses but not to flaunt. Bragging we called that and it was unappealing. Those that focused solely upon doing their own thing were considered a bit eccentric. Where I grew up we had a number of them. The names are famous people, all very successful in their field. They were all a bit eccentric ! Different is another way of saying that. Well, when you are rich and famous you can afford to be different is what I was told. Makes sense.
 It is the willingness to just put it out there that makes the difference. Is presenting your work a matter of arrogance or is it just confidence in that works validity. A work must be valid to be accepted. It has to fill a need in others. The " artist " must find and understand that need in others to be successful. In written works the words need to transport people, take them to another place. They are for edification or entertainment, sometimes both. So how do you measure the success or failure of your efforts ? Is it measured by the willingness of others to spend their money for your work ? The more others spend, the greater your success ? Popularity is the measurement is it not ? Popularity equals financial success. Well, not always. Some continue to pursue their passions regardless of any of that. They have an internal source of fuel that is seemingly inexhaustible. It is that which remains a mystery to me. I have been told you should do things to just please yourself. I understand that. The thing is I am most pleased when I can please others. Hey becoming rich and famous would be cool, I could handle that, but that isn't my goal in life. I just want to be happy. It's that simple really. When those around me are happy, I'm happy too. If I can contribute to your happiness, even if only for a few minutes, I will have been successful. Good Greif that sounds patronizing.
 

Ancestors, in color

 I have my corner of the room. It is in this corner that I write my thoughts and share my memories. I have my pictures on the wall. It is almost like a gallery. Well I think it is time to rearrange the gallery pieces and add a few more. I want to keep it interesting. I have grown quite accustomed to the present layout. Admittedly not many see this gallery as I do not have many visitors. I am not big on entertaining. That doesn't mean it shouldn't stay interesting to me. The changes I will make will be subtle ones,they will be to others anyway. In our memories things are fixed. Like my grandmothers home, I always see it in the same way, unchanged over the years. My childhood home is remembered that way also. Strange the way we remember things. It may be that the grandkids will remember Granpas' gallery when they grow old and relate that to their children. Their attention is drawn to it every now and again and they question. I am pleased when that happens spontaneously because I believe that is how we learn the best. That is to say, when we take a self interest to find out. We tend to remember better for some reason. It really is like a class in school, did you like it or not ? Learning shouldn't be a chore to be accomplished.
 Memories are one of our greatest possessions. They are also something that should be shared. It is like love, that should also be shared. It is how both are kept alive. My little gallery now displays pictures of my parents and their parents. Yes they are ancestors. Hard to think of your parents and aunts and uncles as ancestors. It does make them sound old. Great Great Grandfather Terry, the civil war veteran, he's an ancestor and I readily accept that but Dad ? Well, I think this time I may add a few pictures of myself from younger days. It seems a bit strange to include myself among the ancestors. I have my brother and sister there but they are older than me. I sometimes find it hard to remember certain little things from the past. Oh, it's nothing important just details, but I have those reminders. Old pictures can start conversations. Conversations teach if one participates. You can learn things about yourself !
 I will have to cull through my old photographs and see which ones make the cut. It can be difficult to select at times. I have my favorites. There are others that tell a little story and sadly I have some that are silent. Those are ones I took on vacation somewhere but have forgotten where. You know the kind, you were interested in that object or view when the shot was taken but years later it is, what ? I will not discard those photos but I don't know what to do with them. I started this gallery with mostly black and white photographs but some color ones have crept in. I'll be adding a few more color ones this time around. I remember when we didn't have color photography but most of my shots are in color. My first camera was a Polaroid Swinger and it was black and white. I don't have any pictures I took with that gem though. The addition of more color will change the ambience of the gallery. Perhaps it will be a bit more attractive. Just as those neon lights draw the crowd maybe it will draw more interest. We'll see.

Live to tell

 Live to tell. That is the title of a new show coming on the history channel. I haven't seen a single episode and am not sure I will. I'm struggling with the premise. Now CBS had a few shows with the same title and those stories were about people surviving a flood and a hurricane, stuff like that. The history channel Live to Tell is going to be a documentary series about fighting the " war " on terror. I can assume the setting will be Afghanistan and other locations in the middle east. These are to be first person accounts of battles. That is what I am struggling with. Allow me to explain.
 My father and his generation, often called the greatest generation, rarely spoke of battles they were in. They would tell of the battles of others, occasionally, and of other non battle related events, but in my experience, never in the first person. I , of course, was not there directly following that war and it had been over a good eight years before my arrival. It was also another six to eight years before I could even begin to understand about war. So, let's say a twenty year period had elapsed since those battles had taken place. I can't say whether those men were just tired of telling the tales or if they never told. I can only speak for my Dad who wouldn't tell me anything. He always evaded my questioning by saying, it's a horrible thing war but sometimes you gotta do it. He never admitted to me having shot, killed or injured any enemy soldier. I was left with the impression that war, and the fighting of it, was an intimate thing, not spoken about in the first person. I got that same feeling from the Vietnam vets of my own era. They would tell of the exploits of others, readily, but seldom spoke of their own. Again it appears to be an intimate experience. I will say this, I have no direct personal experience in combat ! I was in the Navy, on ships at sea. My wartime experience is not comparable to direct combat.
 It is this feeling I have about combat being an intimate experience. I do not believe one should discuss such things in the first person to anyone other than those directly involved. I believe to " put it out there " in the first person cheapens the story somehow. It sounds like bragging to me. Now I'm not saying those that survive shouldn't be grateful that they did so but they shouldn't forget those they killed to do so. And that is the problem I have with the premise of this new series the History channel is going to air. Telling those tales, even though they are true, will have the effect of glorifying them. They could serve as inspiration to some, I can see that, but they can have a detrimental effect just as easily. The only thing I ever heard from my Dad and others, war that war was hell but you do what you have to do and then try to forget about it.
 In all fairness to everyone I wouldn't go so far as to say they shouldn't make this show. If the telling of the tale, in the first person, by the person involved, helps them in any way find closure, God bless them. It is their cross to bear and I have no right to judge. I just don't think I'll be watching. As I said I think it is an intimate thing and shouldn't be shared in a public format. To watch would be a form of morbid fascination in my opinion. Yes I am pleased that our men, Americans, have survived to tell. It is just that it feels wrong to brag about it. It is not entertainment, this killing of the enemy, but reality. It is my fear that the distinction may be lost to some and that can be dangerous. General George Patton summed it up nicely when he said, " No man ever won a war by dying for his country. Wars were won by making the other poor bastard die for his. " Is it excessive pride or relief ? I expect it is a measure of both. All of what I have written I would say is a casual observation. I am not committed to either view. I do think it may be a generational thing. Neither wrong nor right.
 

Disconnected

 We all talk about how the kids today don't get outside enough to just play. Everything does seem to be organized, supervised and scheduled. Back in my day you could get yourself grounded. You were grounded to return you to being grounded ! When you did something wrong you were losing ground and so you had to stay home to find that which was lost. Sometimes that grounding only confined you to your own yard. The far worse scenario was being confined to your home, inside ! If it was really serious, television may also be withheld. I have experienced all three of these situations. Not to brag but I wasn't often grounded but when I was it was effective. That's probably because I wasn't grounded often. Wait a minute, the intent is to be grounded ! It can be confusing. But, I was thinking about this because I have noticed the big punishment today is apparently taking your phone away !
 Now at my age taking the phone away seems like a silly thing at first. My phone will take a picture but I only make phone calls on it and an occasional text if you don't answer. The grandkids phones however are smarter than that, that's why they are called smart phones. They're televisions, gaming systems and the library. too ! Taking that phone away is cutting them off from society just like having to stay indoors did to me. The big difference is the number of " contacts " they may have. We didn't have " contacts " we had friends. Those friends were of varying degrees and having their phone number was an indication of how intimate a relationship that was, especially with the opposite sex. Even when I was grounded I went to school and so saw my friends. I did have to tell them that I was grounded and take the walk of shame as they went to the movies or the malt shop. A little bit of that got you grounded again real fast ! You returned to being sensible and well balanced. You found out it didn't make much sense to do stupid stuff. You learned to balance the risk with the reward. Sure, smoke that cigarette behind the hardware store, you'll be cool. Got to be on ice for a week after that ! That's cool.
 The kids todays have their contacts. You can send a friend request, we only did that to girls when I was young and you really wanted to be more than friends. I hated that when the girls just wanted to be friends. We can still be friends, right ? Arrg ! Now they also post to their profile, we didn't have profiles back then, you had to face us head on. I can post, to my profile page that I am in a relationship. That means I'm going steady, maybe. Really it means message me. You know, what we called passing a note. So the removal of their phones effectively isolates them from contact with their friends. I think more " courting " is done on social media these days than in real life. That is a sad state of affairs in my opinion. No more love letters, now they write essays ! It is sad to think that the kids of today rely so heavily on their phones for social interaction. Now the " grounding " of our children is more like a disconnect ! Maybe that is contributing to the disturbing attitudes we are seeing in society today. Are our children being disconnected from living in the real world ? The denial of " service " is todays grounding.

I wanted to be poor

 I woke up this morning to another fractured dream. I didn't win the Powerball lottery. Not only I am not rich, I'm not famous either. Man, I had plans for that cash. I did purchase three chances and so it cost me six dollars. I gave up  a hamburger and fries for that dream. Probably a winner in that regard though. Of course the downside is I'll live in poverty a little longer not having eaten that burger. The next Powerball drawing starts at a paltry forty million dollars. How are you supposed to live on that ? I'm only buying two tickets next time !
 Did you feel a little tinge of disappointment to discover you won nothing ? I didn't even match one number. I admit, I did feel a little disappointed even though I know I shouldn't. I am well aware of the odds. It does speak to the unflinching spirit of man that we buy the ticket. I want to take that chance, it is a little thrill. I hesitated to even look this morning because to know the answer is to kill the dream. I looked, it died ! The result was fairly certain but that tiny bit of hope was there. It still is. I'll just have to wait for the next time I guess.
 Is this compulsion to gamble a bad thing ? Yes, it is. There is no other logical response to that question. Nothing is just a little wrong. Gambling is wrong. No matter how you try to justify it, it is morally wrong. I could and should use that money, no natter how small an amount, to the benefit of others. That is the morally responsible thing to do. The logic that it is alright as long as you don't spend too much is flawed logic. Again , you can't be just a little wrong. The goal should be to be " correct " in our actions all the time, not sometimes. That being said, I will buy more chances and make no delusion that I will not. The temptation for the reward of riches is strong. My justification for doing so is always the good I can do with the money should I win. Well as the words to the song say, " the road to hell is paved with good intentions. " I can always use the logic that my contribution does benefit someone, the winner. I do not get to decide who is deserving and that is the drawback there. But then again, it's not gambling if you get to decide who wins and loses.
 I have checked the numbers on my ticket several times this morning. They haven't changed ! The news is reporting how many won the jackpot and there are reports on several millionaires also being made. I know the odds of matching all six numbers is 292 million to one. I wonder what the odds are of not matching any of the numbers , three times in a row !  Shouldn't I get an award for that ? Seems like you should at least get another chance. Does that sound fair to you ? How many tickets were sold that fell into that category ? Is it buyers regret that I am feeling ? No, it is disappointment. Well, I'll get it next time that is the mantra of the optimist. The optimist thinks they can see the future. Without my glasses I can barely see the computer screen, but it doesn't stop me. Even knowing that I am committing a moral indiscretion doesn't deter me. The twisted logic there being, it isn't all that bad if you admit that it is bad. I can handle bad and therefore it won't get worse. It's a slippery slope however. I could wind up being a " liberal ! " I do need to contemplate all the ramifications of this desire to buy lottery tickets. Could be there is more at stake here then I imagined. A last word of advice :  play responsibly.
 When the outcome stands to personally benefit ourselves we will justify the action and sometimes carry that to excess. That isn't the case so much when the benefit is for others. That is the distinction between addiction and philanthropy. Of course you don't hear about many poor philanthropists ! Isn't that ironic. Shouldn't the true philanthropist be poor ? I wanted to be poor ? Oh, wait a minute, I am.

Legacy

 I didn't stay up to listen to the State of the Union address. Not being a big fan of this president I didn't feel like I could stomach much more of his rhetoric. This being his last address it was more concerned with his " legacy " than any thing else. In all fairness it is that way with all presidents giving their final address. I did listen to the news this morning and that was their message, it was about his legacy. So the news just confirmed what I already knew. There was mention of who was invited and who was not. All just political posturing.
 Legacy, that which we leave behind is a prime concern of many people I think. I wouldn't say it was a primary concern of mine, although I will admit to wanting to be remembered, in a good way. If you are the President you will build a library to preserve your every action and word. That certainly would make me nervous ! This president will have an eight year period to cover. He is the first black president. That is a responsibility. The fact of the matter is, legacy is not established until years after the actual events. At least the legacy of a president isn't. When you are guiding a country changes happen slowly and results are not immediate. Those that held that office in the beginning are mostly revered today. Names like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, and more recently Kennedy are spoken with almost a reverence. That wasn't universally so during their lifetimes. Yes, even Abraham Lincoln had his detractors and they weren't all confederate sympathizers. What will be the legacy of Barrack Obama ? My best guess is he will be remembered for being the first black president. In my opinion he as done nothing to cement a place in history. By his own admission the rival political parties became more divided under his leadership. His is an administration of decisiveness. But that is a personal opinion and subject to debate. It will be tested and proven only through time. Future events will shape the legacy of Barrack Obama as it has done with every other president.
 I don't want this blog to be a political condemnation of President Obama. I will attempt to refrain from that. What I am thinking about is this idea of " legacy. " Is legacy something that we should concern ourselves with, or should we rather let the chips fall where they may. That we should consider the consequences of our actions goes without question. The thing is, should we allow that to influence our choices ? Would you make a decision contrary to your personal beliefs to strengthen your legacy ? That is where perception plays a role. What will others think ? We can certainly do things that people will remember. The question is, are they of long term benefit to everyone, or just a pandering to the current attitude of your constituents ? It takes a great deal of confidence or ignorance to create a legacy. Keep in mind when we say legacy, positive actions are implied. It isn't always the case however and that is why it takes confidence or ignorance. In the case of a President their legacy concerns major changes or accomplishment. We remember Lincoln for what ? Kennedy did what ? And we remember Nixon in what way ? That is legacy. This year will be his last chance to influence the perception of his legacy. I make no comment regarding that.
 What about your personal legacy ? Is that something you think about ? I don't think many of us do when we are younger. It is something that becomes of more concern as we age. Just like a president, when we can see the end in sight, we begin to be concerned ! In my case, you could say I have begun to write my library. Will that be my legacy ? I don't know and can not say as I do not get to determine that. Only time will tell and I'll be long gone by then. Unless you have achieved great popularity in your lifetime I don't see how you could be certain. That being said, there are many " stars " of the past that have been forgotten as well. Transcending time isn't an easy proposition. That is what " legacy " is all about.

Where did you get that idea

 What is meaningful to you ? That is a question that needs to be answered before you can find true happiness. That is what I am thinking anyway. There are so many causes to choose from but which one hits home ? The other aspect is do you require an acknowledgement of that concern to keep your interest ? What I mean is, if you are pursuing a cause but no one notices or seems to care beside you, will you continue in that pursuit ? Does the motive for just action make a difference ? Can you do good for the wrong reason ? It is the old, does the means justify the end argument. What is more important, personal action or end result ? Personal action is a measure of ethical and moral behavior. It is my belief you should not sacrifice either in the pursuit of a result, even if the hoped for result is a positive one for society.
 What I am speaking about is, of course, an ideology. Many of us do not give it much consideration. Just how did we arrive at the ideological premises we hold so dear ? Did we learn them from our parents, or do we change them in accordance with what society deems acceptable ? I would say that my ideology has transformed somewhat over the years. I am still what you would label a conservative but have really only adopted a harder line on that in recent years. When I was younger, and in my current opinion, less wise, I would jump more readily on the bandwagon. It was easier to take that road and I saw no harm in it. I have since become more reluctant to " climb aboard " as I have found that just because an apparent majority finds something acceptable does not make it a correct action. Call it peer pressure or whatever term you choose but the action is the same. Popularity is a strong motivator, especially to the young. I have always been one to " cling " to my ideological leanings. Some call that being stubborn. I call it being confident in my thoughts and reasoning. But we need to remember we are talking about ideas. Ideas should not be considered threatening. It is only the result of an action that should be considered. The question is, are you responsible for the results ? If you champion the idea, that then leads to the action, are you responsible for that result ? It  may or may not be a immediate result. Are you responsible for the long term effect ? That is ideology as we generally think of it. As a system of political and economic ideas or ideals. But we do have to have a personal ideology. It is the recognition of that ideology that will lead us to a meaningful life. It is that understanding that brings the inner peace we all seek.
 It boils down to this. Is it more important to be right, in your mind, or to have taken action, even if that action was wrong ? For me I want to be right. I know that about myself and to others it can be infuriating. I get that. I will hesitate when uncertain. I will admit when I don't know the answer. The infuriating part comes in when I continue to want to discuss a possible action after the other person has made up their mind. That is often received as arrogance or complete folly. The other person may feel like I am trying to convince them of my point of view. I suppose on some level that is true, and it should be if you truly believe what you are defending. I feel it is the defense of an idea that will ultimately prove or disprove its' worth. Is your idea supported by an axiom ? If it is, then it is not an idea but a fact. The issue lies in determining fact from fiction or an idea. Ideas are always fiction, as they are unproven. We can not know the future result of todays' actions with complete certainty. " It seemed like a good idea at the time. " Was that a result of just not thinking it through or was it just bad ideology ?
 Well I managed to wander way off the course I started with. That happens sometimes and I will just leave it at that. A collection of random thoughts loosely interrelated I would say.  

Selling the news

 I turn on the news and the headlines are the billion dollar lottery and the Playboy mansion is for sale. I would like to win the first but have no interest in the second. As I listened to the reporters interviewing folks buying their lottery tickets I heard a few make this statement, I never buy lottery tickets, but when it gets really big I do. A bit of a contradiction but I understand what they mean. They mean they do not buy lottery tickets consistently. I don't either. I will buy one or two whenever I think about it or the mood strikes. The Powerball people stated that the jackpot begins at 40 million dollars. That is the lowest amount for the jackpot ! Let that figure sink in, forty million dollars. So to those that say I only but a ticket when the prize grows large, my question is, how much does it have to be before you risk two dollars ? Disregarding taxes and all of that is a forty million dollar return on a two dollar bet not worth the risk ? It would be a twenty million percent return, if my math is correct. That is a pretty good return. I just think the reason is a simple one. When the number gets larger more people are talking about it and it generates that interest. It is rather strange if you think about it though, we are so accustomed to the possibility of winning forty million dollars on a two dollar bet that we generally ignore it ! Ah, it's only forty million, not worth risking that two dollars I'll buy a five dollar cup of Starbucks instead. Is it rational ? Well it isn't rational to expect to win that prize either and you are guaranteed the coffee. Of course for me a cup of coffee isn't worth five bucks ! I'll drink my Folgers thank you very much.
 The other topic was the Playboy mansion being offered for sale. The asking price is 200 million dollars. They said that Hugh bought it in 1971 for 1.1 million. Yes he has made some improvements to the property over the years. A real estate expert placed the value at about 50 million due to the size of the lot and the fact that it is  "the mansion."  He added about fifteen million dollars to the price for that reason alone. There is a catch however, the current owner and resident Hugh Hefner wants lifetime rights to live there. So, he wants to sell the house and gain two hundred million dollars from the sale. That would then free him from any expenses for taxes and upkeep of the home, but, he gets to live there ! Sounds like a sweet deal to me. That mansion does have some tales to tell and I'm certain someone or a corporation will be interested. Maybe they could hire Hugh to be the greeter as they sold tours of the mansion. I can see it all now, Hugh sitting by the door, in his smoking jacket greeting the people. Hello and welcome to the Playboy mansion. You are now entering the center of immorality and decadence in America, enjoy your stay. And don't forget to stop by the gift shop.
 It could be said that both headlines concern an immoral theme. One is gambling and the other vice. Sadly both are the headlines ! It says a lot about the nature of man doesn't it ? It is true that is what sells. We should all remember when listening to the television news that it is all about making a profit. The news is presented for profit not necessarily concerned with journalistic integrity. The news won't always take the high ground. The stories that sell are the ones headlined. This morning it is gambling and the availability of a " historic " piece of property. Yes, it is historic but not a part of history I would take pride in. Hugh Hefner starts a magazine whose sole purpose is to exploit women and becomes an icon. Yup, that's America.

two dollar dreams

 No one won the Powerball jackpot. It is now estimated the next one will be worth about 1.3 billion dollars. Yes, that's billion with a b. An amazing amount of money and far beyond my true comprehension. I'll have to buy a few tickets even though the last three I purchased only matched one number. Six dollars for a few days of dreaming. It is true you have no chance of winning unless you buy that ticket. It is also true that to change your individual odds of matching those winning numbers you would have to buy a minimum of 150,000 tickets. Then the odds change in your favor by I/10 of one percentage point ! So, why did I buy six ? Seems like your chances are better doesn't it ? The reality is otherwise. Still I will continue to buy several. I like to buy them at different places. It is fun to dream.
 Another amazing fact is that there is more than enough money to pay that amount out. What is amazing about that is how that money can be raised, with a surplus, when the end result may benefit ourselves more than others. It does say a little something about our humanity. Many of us hesitate to give to a charity while we buy lottery tickets. Is it because the tickets only cost a dollar or two, or is it because we stand to gain ? I do think that most of us feel that donating a dollar or two would accomplish little.  A small donation like a dollar does seem insignificant. I wonder how much money is spent on the administration of the lottery program ? I mean, look at a casino. They are quite elaborate places with many amenities. They surely have a large operating budget yet still pay out a substantial amount in winnings. The money is there ! It is there by the " donation " in relatively small amounts of individuals. Everyone, with the exception of the donors, is making money. The employees are making a wage, the owners are making a profit. The city makes money off the business and government collects taxes. Yes, the individual has the chance to win big, and that is why they go. It is a temptation.
 I'm not saying it is wrong and that we shouldn't do it. I will say it is not a fiscally responsible thing to do. There is no harm however if done within your means. Some will argue the morality of the issue and I can see that. The moral issue being we should be giving to help others, not in the hope of helping ourselves. What if you do both ? If I were to give, in equal amounts. to the charity of my choice the same amount I spent on gambling, would that then be alright ? Is it wrong to pray to win ? Many do, and many will question their sincerity of belief. But what if they win and spend the money to do good ? Was it then the provenience of God that they won ? That brings just blind luck into the question. Do you believe in luck ? I certainly do as I can not find any other explanation for certain events. The question I have not answered is, does God control luck ? Is everything that happens due to the intervention of God ? God gave us all free will to do and act as we please so that indicates he does not intervene unless requested to do so. What if he fails to intervene when asked ? What does that mean ? For me, I would say the more likely answer is, I failed to listen. The fault surely lies with me. So, I guess you could say, in a way, we make our own luck. Man is imperfect and so the things he makes will be as well. I can pray to my God for answers but not for luck. That seems reasonable.
 Winning the lottery is certainly just a matter of blind luck. Man thought of the concept of gambling. Man has been gambling since the beginning of time. It started with Adam. Eating of the fruit of knowledge was a gamble. Man lost. We have been gambling ever since. We will continue to do so in the hope of personal gain. That is what is at the heart of gambling. Playing the lottery is gambling. We will tell ourselves it is an amusement. Can we afford to be amused ? Yes, I suppose we can. Money is a man made thing as well. It is imperfect. It really is a matter of choice isn't it ? I'll buy a couple more chances. My hope would be that should luck come my way, I would use that fortune to do good. The only question being, how much would it take ? Can I not do good with a dollar ? The answer would have to be more money than I could use for personal gain and how much is that ? I don't expect I will ever be able to give an honest answer to that question. But, I'm gonna try to find out.

Lettin' it slide

 I was in a conversation about businesses being open or closed on Sunday. I heard all the regular arguments pro and con. Those opposed like to use the , you can't force your religious beliefs upon me tact. That is of course referencing the " blue laws. " I understand that completely and wouldn't disagree. I have no right to restrict your commerce. Then there was the issue of the employer requiring you to work on your day of worship and how that is also unfair. Again I can see the point being made but religious freedom is a two way street. That aspect of it is making its' way into society even today with the Muslims. Some say they are required to pray five times a day and to not do so violates their religious principles. Should they be given those times during the workday ? Additionally with the Muslim population there is the issue of handling certain food products which they refuse to do. We will leave dress and dress codes out of the discussion. But back to the open on Sunday for business issue. The bottom line for me was this, I remember well the days of the blue laws. It was a different time and place. A lot more folks went to church on Sunday than they do today. Families spent Sundays together a lot more also. The distractions of shopping was removed. Or as I put it, the temptation. I pointed out that man is weak in the flesh and any excuse not to go to church will be grasped at. I was informed that the whole concept of the blue law was to force Christian values on the public and a direct violation of the first amendment ! Furthermore is was a suppression of the Jews. I don't think anyone was forced to attend church or influenced to believe anything. Yes there was mention of those that we didn't see in church, gossip if you will, but that continues till this very day.
 In the end I said I was just being nostalgic about those days and was surprised to receive this response. " The good old days weren't so good. " This person went on to list an entire litany of perceived wrongs that were " justified " back in those old days. I was a bit taken aback. Obviously this person either had lived back then and suffered some bad things or was reading history books. I can tell you this, everything that was mentioned as " bad " is still going on in the world today. The only difference I can see was there have been changes in the grievance section. That a shift in the " human rights " area has taken place can not be denied. This person informed me that nostalgia left out all the negative. I agree. Isn't that the point ? To learn from the mistakes of the past so we may further enjoy the future is the function of memory. Memory and nostalgia are separate things. Perhaps this person was confused about the two. I may have added further confusion in saying I believe America was in a better place back then. It is a theme I often write about. It just seem that everything was much simpler back then, black and white as it were. People, as a whole, were far more accepting of their position in life. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact I find it to be an asset. It is certainly conducive to happiness. Oh but we are told to aspire to so much more and to never settle for less. That isn't to say don't try to improve your situation, just don't measure your success with someone else's yardstick ! Acceptance of reality is not a bad thing ! I am reminded of a story I was often told about a gentleman that lived in my hometown. He was what some would call a " simple " man. By that I mean he was perhaps not quite as intelligent as some. As he was being teased by some others for this perceived lack of intelligence his response, to me, was golden. He looked at those teasing him and said, " I've got all the sense the Lord saw fit to give me. " Then he went about his way. He has accepted his lot and was grateful. A " simple " man ? Not quite so simple as others would have you believe.
 I find it interesting that man continually tries to write law to control the conduct of man. As fast as we write a law, someone finds a reason to oppose. Human rights and religious belief are often the most popular weapons to employ. An appeal to compassion is used to reduce penalties for wrongdoing. The laws that man should live by are written on our hearts at birth. This is a universal truth. It is no coincidence that all the major religions of the world are based upon the same desires of men. We all want to live free from oppression. We all agree that I have no right to kill you. I have no right to take your possessions. We all agree I have a right to happiness as long as that happiness does not infringe upon yours. These concepts do not have to be taught, that are inherent. And yet man tries to rewrite those laws as well. Sadly we " interpret " our religious documents to suit our own agendas. That is why all the confusion. First we must all agree, not just in principle, but in truth. Truth is acceptance. Acceptance also means when something is wrong, it is wrong. It isn't always about just lettin' it slide. Isn't that why man is where he is today ? We know the law but just " let it slide " as is convenient for commerce and personal gratification. Then we form our " doctrine " to reinforce  it. We employ a " solicitor " to define this as a legal and just action. In the United Sates the founding fathers wanted to separate these actions. The result is what we call the separation of Church and State. Unfortunately this separation has been construed as a removal of all religious doctrine from the administration of government. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; is the first part of the first amendment. That is the exact wording. Where does it say that religion should not be a part of our governance ? It only says the government shall not " establish " that is to say, endorse any one particular religion over another or punish anyone for practicing their religion. Okay, so I can't make a law that says you can not open your business on a Sunday. I agree. Funny how we can all agree on basic human rights, at least in principle, but not in commerce or personal gratification. It is a wonderful document that allows this to be so. That document was written by whom ? Did they not interject whatever religious beliefs they held into the composition ? I do not believe you could say otherwise. They were after all just men like you and I. Consider the opening remark, " We hold these truths to be self evident " and what does that mean ? It means those truths require no explanation or justification. It is a Declaration ! We declared it then and the majority of Americans would still declare it so today. Well, unless it interferes with commerce or their personal happiness. Things haven't changed all that much. We continue to just " let it slide. "

a man of action

 I have always admired those with advanced degrees. Going to college wasn't something that was discussed much around my house. That was reserved for those families with money or gifted athletes. At least that was the perception that was portrayed at home. Every time someone with a higher education make some sort of error I would hear this phrase, " he ain't nothing but an educated damn fool. " Over the years I now understand that phrase completely and must say it does hold some validity. I've met a few of those folks myself. Growing up in the blue collar community not many aspired to college. For me it was get a job or join the military. The military offered you training in a field while getting paid. It is hard to refute the value of that situation. Sure you might have to go to war and fight, possibly get yourself shot, but if it was necessary you would do that regardless. At least by volunteering you did get to choose. I choose the Navy for several very practical reasons. First off my oldest brother had been in the Navy and several of my Uncles had served during world war two. Secondly, this was during the Vietnam era and it is hard for the Vietcong to sneak up on you onboard a ship. Then there was the matter of a clean bed and three meals a day, sounded better all the time. I did receive training in being a stationary engineer as well. So the decision was made and I must say it turned out well. Yes I could have worked on and received an advanced degree had I chosen to do so, but that wasn't in the cards. Or more properly that wasn't the hand I played. Let's just say I had a lot of fun along the way and leave it at that.
 Now as far as those educated damn fools I mentioned earlier I have a theory about that. With advanced degrees come a higher salary. The more money you have as disposable income the more time you have to devote to the esoteric. Sometimes those folks get lost in that neighborhood and that is when they appear to be fools. The rest of us are too busy concerning ourselves with the everyday business of earning a living, or seeking an escape from that living. It is the plight of the common man. Often times the esoteric is of little value to survival, indeed it is the concern of scholars. Many scholars justify their decisions upon the fact they have a degree. They will present that fact as evidence of their superior intellect. Problem is they are presenting it to men of action. Different game altogether. And this often manifests itself in politics more so than in any other field. We the people tend to elect those with these degrees. Why ? Because the perception is they are smart. They also have the means to pursue the political ladder. The drawback being these are people more concerned with the esoteric nature of government than in actually doing something ! That is why they spend so much time in committee and discussion. This is how they make their living. It wasn't always that way though. Originally the members of Congress only convened to handle the business of government for a short time and then returned home to manage their own concerns. Those folks were grounded more in getting things done. They were educated men of action ! They were not just educated. Big difference.  Modern day scholars can become isolated from the world and I believe that is what happens in some cases. Celebrity may also have the same effect. The common denominator being disposable income and a separation from the " real " world.
 I do not regret the fact I do not posses an advanced degree. Education and intelligence has little to do with that. It is action that gets things done. I do find it a little frustrating that unless you can procure that evidence of having completed courses of instruction, you are not considered for certain positions. That piece of paper does open doors to opportunity that can not be denied. It is just that I do not place such a high value on it as some. It's impressive but not necessarily humbling. I do find it amusing when someone with an advanced degree writes or expounds upon a subject that they really have little or no understanding of. They will write, with a flourish, their name followed by those letters. PhD. Well Doctor all I can say is, you're an educated damn fool. If you want to know how to lay block, talk to the mason not the architect ! The architect can tell you what it looks like and how it should be built but can't actually do it. That takes a man of action. I think that is what this country needs right now, a man of action. Those actions must be correct and meaningful however. Just doing something for the sake of doing it does nothing either. We need to choose carefully. We need to come down out of the clouds and get to work. Remember the story of the tortoise and the hare ? Slow and steady wins the race. Yes, I'm a conservative person by nature and in my politics. Tried and true methods are always best to achieve results. It is fine to experiment, much can be discovered, but don't base your life upon it.