Quality of life

 It is something you hear all the time. Quality of life. what is your quality of life, are you enjoying a good quality of life, your quality of life is being effected. Just what the heck are they talking about ? Happiness ? Is that what quality of life is all about ? Am I happy ? If that is the case why not just ask that question ? I had to fill out a form for the doctor, one of those questions is, rate your quality of life on a scale of one to ten, ten being the best. I had to scratch my head on that one. In order to rate something on a scale one has to know the standard. Wouldn't that standard be different for each one of us ? I know the pain scale certainly is. Some folks feel like they are dying when they cut their finger, and others rub it on their pants leg and keep on going. How can I measure my quality of life. I think my life is of the highest quality, at least that is the goal anyway. I'm certainly not going to admit to being a low-life ! But, I know that isn't what they mean. I think they want you to assess your own mental state. Do you feel like living or dying ? Isn't that the scale they are trying to use ?
 I do think all this talk about quality of life is a modern thing. It is a marketing device. You can increase your quality of life with certain products and services right ? All you have to do is listen to the commercials on television to learn that much. From little blue pills to scooters that give you back  your mobility there are products that improve your quality of life. How about a step in bath to avoid falls ? A stair lift can be purchased so you can stay in your home. All these products are aimed at improving your quality of life. That is the marketing strategy isn't it ? The not so subtle message being, if you can't do everything you did when you were a teenager, your quality of life is degraded. You need to be " out there. " The question is where is " out there. "
  The quality of your life is dependent upon the quality of your thoughts. What are good thoughts and what are bad thoughts ? They are measured against societal norms. What is society saying ? It appears our society has a lot to say about what is good and bad. That definition is changing everyday. Society today is always looking to place the blame somewhere other than on the individual. And when we fail to take personal responsibility for our actions our quality of life is degraded. That is why there is such a market for products to improve that quality. Call it co-dependence. When you start to measure your quality of life against the standards that society sets, you are bound to fall short. You are destined to failure simply by growing older. Wisdom is supposed to accompany age, that's the way it should work. There was an old television commercial for Chiffon margarine whose catch line was, it's not nice to fool mother nature. Funny but true. It really isn't nice to fool mother nature and not a very smart thing to attempt ! There really is a natural order to things.
 If asked to measure your quality of life what standard will you use ? I will just think about all that I have had, what I have now, and what I hope is to come. Things seem to be progressing just as they should. I've made good and bad choices. Thing is they have been my choices and that is where the quality lies. I won't be compared to you or anyone else. Hey, I believe I'm a high quality product. Nothing wrong with that. It has taken many years to get here, I'm satisfied so far. It's a work in process, living that is, and will continue until it's done. The quality of my life will be judged when it is finished and not before. That's my thinking anyway.

Old names

 Yesterday I went out for a drive with the wife. The sun was shining so we grabbed the camera and off we went. We decided to take some back roads we haven't explored before. On one of those roads we spotted a little country church. The name on the church was simply, " Lockerman. "  Now Lockerman is also the name on our middle school  I wondered if the two were related in some fashion. I haven't looked in to that possibility as it was just a passing fancy. It isn't worth the investigation to me at this time. It did give me this thought. Lockerman must have been a family name of some prominence at one time in the county. I mean Lockerman middle school is the only middle school in Caroline county. That lead me to continue thinking of other names like that in Greensboro, were I live. Comegy was a very prominent family back in the day and today you don't hear that name at all. Jarman was another. I can't but wonder where the descendants of those families went. I wonder too, how it feels to go from prominence to insignificance. Never having been in a prominent position I suppose I will never know.
 I haven't done any research papers on this subject but it would make an interesting one for an upcoming sociologist. My first thoughts are, with a few notable exceptions, prominence only lasts a few generations. Those exceptions would be with the very wealthy. The first ones being known for the accumulation of that wealth and the succeeding generations for having inherited that fortune. I mean, think Rockefeller. That name is synonymous with wealth, same as Dupont. If you are either of those you enjoy prominence just by simple association. But I believe for the majority a few generations is as long as it lasts in a specific geographic area. I'm thinking about regional prominence.  It could be a town, county or even a state. Once you reach national prominence that is a different thing altogether.
 We have all heard about the old names and the old money. Old money is the best right ? Why, because the old money has deep roots and a great deal more influence. Of course, new money, if in sufficient quantities can displace that old money. It happens all the time. That is what could be studied, the why of that happening. Did the generations removed from that original prominence fail to understand the work it took to gain it in the first place ?  Do they begin to " ride the coattails " as it were ? Or do those generations move away from that area to establish their own niche independently ? Is it a failure of those succeeding generations to keep up ? Or does the name become so associated with the past, for good or bad, that change is inevitable ? People do want change even when there is nothing wrong with the way things are.
 I don't know but I have seen this everywhere I have lived. The largest Mausoleum in the Greensboro cemetery, and the only one, has the name of Jarman on it. It was built to house four individuals, only two are in residence. That mausoleum is the last vestige of that once extremely prominient family. Mr. C B Jarman brought the first telephone to Greensboro. He started the bank and had a number business interests in town. All history now. I'm quite certain Mr. Jarman never imagined such a thing. I wonder how he would feel about that. A name, a family of influence and importance, now all but forgotten. Their names are written in the dusty old books and official papers of the town. A few old timers will speak of them as they heard their parents speak of them. They say Mr. Clinton B Jarman was a vain man, hence the mausoleum. He demanded nothing but the best. That is all I have heard about him on a personal level. That he was a man of considerable wealth is without question. Several of his properties survive today in various states. I would say few know that unless you read the history of Greensboro.
 I do wonder if this " dying out " of prominence occurs because of living in the shade. The first family members to " make it " casting that shadow on succeeding generations. Then those generations either wind up paying for perceived injustices of that family, or moving away to escape that shadow. Just why are they displaced and relegated to history ? I wonder too if it is a frustration to those members of that family that remain. Is it a failure on their part to step out of the shadow ? Perhaps it is an impossibility to due that. Have they been disadvantage by perceived advantages ? Well, as I said it would make an interesting study for a sociology student.   

age and memory

 Unshared memories are the loneliest thing of all. That was my thought as I looked at some old photographs. Those pictures are people and places that I knew in my youth. Choice and circumstance have removed me from that place. My wife and children have no memories there. As a result even though I sit here and look at those pictures, tell the stories that go with them, the memory is a lonely one. That is because the memory is only shared by one, and I am that one. There is an old song One is the loneliest number, that expresses that same sentiment. It really does take two to share. What I'm really doing is relating stories about those pictures. The story is always one sided. I'm afraid it is not very entertaining to the one listening at times. My wife has heard all the stories, multiple times, and yet she still listens, and I love her for that.
 Of course I do share on Facebook. There are folks there that remember. With those folks I can reminisce. The reactions are a bit delayed due to transmission of data, but nevertheless enjoyable. I can call my sister or mother and talk. It isn't the same thing as being in the same room and sharing however. It is as I wrote the other day, visiting,  that I miss. I miss people just stopping by unannounced and unplanned. I miss just stopping in on others. I miss the whole conversation thing, talking about much of nothing. Yeah, you could call it gossiping but I call it having a discussion of events or possible events. Might even be what I think you were doing or saying. You can't really do that long distance though. That's the problem with the past, it was a long time ago. Visual aids are required to stimulate conversation about that stuff. Isn't that why we take those pictures in the first place, to remind ourselves ? We do the same thing by holding onto certain objects. I have things the kids made in kindergarten, a gift I was given by an old friend and those type of things.
 Memories are in the first person. That is my thinking anyway. I may share my memory with others but then they are a story. If I share that memory with another that was there, that is in the first person. That is because they can respond to you, in the first person as well. Two eye witnesses to an event comparing notes. It is that action that keeps those memories alive. The memory does become stale if only told by one. Another old saying is, a picture is worth a thousand words. I agree that is the case. It is especially true when two or more people share the view. It has been my experience that the background is often more interesting in those old photographs than the central subject. The background brings back memories too. I guess that is where that saying originated because it would take a thousand words, at a minimum, to explain a photograph. I would say that could be true with objects as well. How old does something have to be to be considered an artifact ? I have a few of those around my house and I store my old pictures and papers in a chest labeled the " archives. "
  My oldest memories, the ones before my wife and children , are in a distant land.  Now the kids are all grown but haven't reached that age where they are interested in reminiscing. They don't want to talk about the past because they are too busy living for today, and planning for tomorrow. I'm at that age where my biggest plan is to stay alive as long as I can. What's that saying, you don't know what you have until it's gone ? Yeah, I would like to go back and get some of that. The function of memory is to take us to a place and time. It just isn't as much fun when you go alone. I don't know I guess I'm just feeling a little nostalgic, a little bit lonely looking at the old pictures. Still I'm drawn to them like the proverbial moth to the flame.
 The whole thing is that my memories with the wife and children don't seem quite old enough. They haven't aged all that much. At least that is the perception I have and I think most of us do as well.  Yeah an occasional baby picture or some significant achievement may be remembered every now and again. Those pictures and events aren't securitized however as their memory is fresh. There is no explanation or discussion required. About the best you can expect is confirmation of whatever facts you already know. Memories do have to " age " before they are appreciated. Memories preserved ? How long do they have to age ? Well the best apart about memories are you can always make some more. You will never run out. Could be it is time for me to start remembering the 80's. I've still got some CD's from then.

the last view

 I had the sad duty to attend a viewing last evening. It is a social convention that I have come to accept  but resisted for many years. That stemmed from the passing of my great grandfather. That was in '68 and I was fourteen. I had never been to a funeral before. You must remember that was back in the day when children weren't brought along for everything. But, my parents decided I was old enough to attend the funeral. I distinctly recall going into Fred Williams funeral parlor. That is what it was called, a parlor. Just the name concurred up images of Victorian people all dressed in black and looking very stoic. I was encouraged to go " see " gramp all laid out in his best suit. The coffin was a gray metal one and I didn't like it. When I saw him lying there like that, I lost it. I ran out of that place as fast as I get gone ! My oldest brothers' wife followed me and comforted me, I'll always remember her for that kindness. Many years followed that I refused to go to any viewings or funerals. I find the sadness to be overwhelming.
 Over the years I have given in to that practice of going to the viewing and attending the funeral. Yes, I do it to show respect to those that are still here, I don't think the deceased care one way or the other. I don't go to say goodbye. I still don't really understand the need to go look at the deceased. And it really bothers me that it is called a viewing. Please, do not put me on display. I wasn't able to attend my grandmothers funeral and so remember her in her kitchen. My great grandfather though, the first image I get is him in that box. That is why I don't like viewings or funerals.  Not that I think anyone does like those things, but you know what I mean. When I attended my brothers service, he was cremated, it was just as sad. I think they call it a celebration of life nowadays but I can't shake the death part. Death is so final ! I'd rather celebrate when we are still alive, thank you just the same.
 It has never been my place to stand alongside the deceased and receive condolences. I'm really not certain that I could. Each one would be a reminder of what I have lost. I'm certain I won't need a reminder. As to whether that action would give me comfort, I can't say. I really don't do well with strong emotions. I know a man is supposed to be strong and not show his feelings all that much but that is in the movies. I'm thinking I would rather be left alone with my thoughts until I could gather myself. Could I do that in the time allotted ? I'm not so certain I could. As for myself, I would rather be treated as a wisp in the wind. I was here but now I'm gone. I want to be remembered for what I left behind. I want you to remember me as you saw me last.
 It is my thinking that these viewings and funerals are to spread the word. Let everyone know and acknowledge the passing of a valuable person in our lives. Is the intent to say that final farewell ? If so I don't like that idea at all. I will live on only by having my name spoken. In the old days it was the convention to not speak of the dead. It was especially taboo to speak ill of the dead. I think we have taken a different approach in the last twenty years or so. As I said the naming of these gatherings as a celebration of life for instance. I even see memorials as stickers on car windows. Quite tacky in my opinion. I really don't want to be remembered on a bumper sticker. My thinking is that it somehow gives comfort to the individual doing that. It does seem important these days to have outward displays of your feelings. It just seems that some folks what everyone to know the obvious. But, to each their own. My point is this, I would rather you find out about my passing in conversation rather than an announcement. In a conversation you would be asking about me, or I am the topic of conversation. That reason may be the obvious, did you know that he died ? With that question I am alive again however. At least I will be for the duration of that discussion. Yes, I want people to talk about me when I am gone. Isn't that what being remembered is all about ?
 Do you think this is all a selfish thing on my part ? I just don't want to go to viewings as I find them just so depressing. I really see no point in it. Attending a funeral is much the same to me. I don't want to say a final farewell. I will keep on talking to you whether you are here or not. That's my feeling anyway. I'm certain I'll be at my own but I don't want that either ! But then, that is not for me is it ? And that explains it all. This growing up stuff is a depressing business. Some things you just gotta do.     
   

Ambigious morality

  The great divide. We have all heard of that, at least those of us that went to school in the 50's and sixties. I can't say what they taught after that. But anyway, the great divide is that range of mountains that separate the east of the country from the west. That is a fairly basic description anyway. The rivers on the east draining into the Atlantic ocean or the gulf of Mexico. The rivers in the west draining in to the Pacific ocean. You can't have a river running uphill you know so it is a simple concept to understand. That mountainous area does form a boundary of sorts, although man long ago overcame it. Still I was thinking about the great divide this morning, just not the mountain one. I was thinking that it is technology that has been causing the great divide lately. The division is between one generation and the next.
 I was thinking about that after writing my story about visiting. Visiting was really all about personal interactions. We did have to be in the physical presence of others to truly communicate with them. Sure, we had the telephone and we could write letters but that was about it. Telephones were not such a reliable technology. The person may not answer the call and it go unknown. Letter writing was a popular method over long distances but was far from immediate ! Remember making a " long distance " call ? I remember having to talk to a special operator to do that. Then you could ask for time and charges. It had best be something important. That is just one example of what I'm thinking about. Today the kids carry a phone in their pocket or on their wrist. Dick Tracy hasn't got a thing on us today.
 I was thinking that technology is causing a separation from one generation to the next. Back in the old days, and that is how we think of that, children learned from their parents and siblings. Oh, I know they went to school to learn the three r's and all that but I'm talking about learning other stuff. The stuff we call " life skills " today. We learned how to be social and live in a society. Fact is we were taught that society was more important than our own feelings. One did not buck the system at every turn. It was a persons standing in the society that mattered the most, not their personal opinion of themselves. We call that by different names these days, back in the old days we called it vanity. In recent times technology has intervened in that dynamic. Now it is all about us, personally !  That is all you hear, it is my right ! You don't hear that is what is required for the greater good, you hear, I deserve this or that, it is my right.
 I am often accused of being shallow in my thinking. I do believe some things are as simple as black and white. There is right and wrong. The moral standard for a person and a nation should not be an ambiguous thing. Ambiguity leads to chaos. That is exactly what we have going on now. Our technology has driven a wedge between the generations. That wedge is a lack of personal interaction. With that separation moral behaviors have been altered. Moral behavior is, after all, just what is accepted in the society. Religion, or a lack of it may justify that morality. Morals are subject to change. It is just that the changes happened much slower and over longer periods of time. Our technology is driving that shift in morality at an ever increasing pace. The reason ? I would say morality is lagging behind commerce, becoming a hindrance to the same, hence the abandonment of those traditional values.
 We are seeing a big divide right now in our nation. It does involve several generations. And what is the big struggle ? I would say it is over moral issues. All the hot button topics can be distilled in that fashion. Those advocating for more traditional values are being labeled as " phobics ". What is a phobia ? A fear of something. That fear is irrational or unfounded. That is what you will hear from those that dismiss whatever action they wish to promote. But how to determine a phobia from a reasoned response ? That is where the problem lies. One doesn't have to be afraid to know that something is wrong or harmful. It seems to me we have a lot of folks " reasoning " that any adherence to traditional values are a phobia ! Well that is one way to validate your choices I suppose, feign ignorance of the problem altogether, just dismiss it as an irrational fear. It is certainly easier than assuming personal responsibility. It is the comfortable path. This is especially true when we can claim adherence to those traditional morals and use them as the means to change them ! That is the beautiful deception isn't it ? Ambiguous morality, what a concept. Really it is just saying, do whatever you like, there is no right or wrong. As long as the majority are in agreement there is no right or wrong ! Well I don't believe that to be the case at all. Remember when you were a kid and did something stupid ? Your parents would say why did you do that ? Your answer may be " everybody else was doing it. " Did that make it right ? Think about that. It was often uncomfortable to do the right thing but we were taught just that. Just what are we teaching future generations now ? Just do whatever feels good ?

visiting

 There doesn't seem like there is much spontaneity in life anymore. What I'm thinking about is folks just stopping by for a visit. When I was little folks would stop by on the weekend, unannounced and unexpected for a visit. Maybe that was simply because our communications were so primitive. I mean, we had a telephone but it was on a cord in the kitchen. There was no answering machine, call forwarding or anything ! If you missed a call you didn't know it until the person trying to call told you so. Strange how nobody was worried about either. Well, they were simpler times for sure. I do miss the visiting part. It was like a surprise party every time. Sometimes you weren't ready for the party but there it was. I can remember hiding because " we weren't home " when certain folks showed up. That was especially true when the insurance man showed up for his monthly payment and funds weren't readily available.
 I do miss the people just showing up and enjoying their company. There wasn't any fuss made, just have a seat and we'll see what we got. It wasn't planned in any way. If you were busy doing something they might just join right in. It was like they were family, even when they weren't. Informal is the word I guess. Relaxed without any show of pretense whatsoever. Hey, these were people that knew you so it was a little too late for that. Now, when you got dressed up and went to church and such that was a different situation. Thing was it worked both ways, those folks weren't expecting a thing either. Just stopping by to say hello, out for a drive. Folks don't go out for a drive anymore is my thinking. I wonder why that is. Growing up there was hardly a day gone by you didn't have to go make sure the ocean was still there or check the conditions on the bay. I guess we just didn't have that many distractions back then.
 It just seems to me everything is planned out nowadays. When they are coming, who is coming and all that. Preparations have to be made. What food/drink does these folks like ? What will we do when they get here ? We feel obligated to entertain. Looking at old photographs and telling stories is rather blasé these days. Shoot even our " home movies " can be shared electronically so no excuse for subjecting others to the viewing ! All of this has contributed to the lack of social skills we see so much of today. People need to be prepared today but not back in the day. No, back in the day you had to adapt to the situation on the fly ! Fact is now we think of those visits, sitting on the porch swing, as a nostalgic thing. Something of the past. Country folks and all that. We were Social before there was social media.
 It is strange how we have made such advances in communication and traveling and yet we are more isolated today than ever before. We sit in our homes, undisturbed except for what we choose to entertain ourselves with. People just don't show up unexpected anymore. Shame too because it was almost always a pleasant surprise, a little gift. Expectations were few but rewards were many. I do miss that, but I fear it is gone forever, a victim of time. Yes there was a day when the sound of a car in the drive would get your attention. Ah, the good old days. Company was a special thing and planned for. Your friends, just dropped by anytime.    

being a " but "

 It is a recurring theme. We all want to be remembered, somehow show future generations that we succeeded. The question is succeeded at what ? Life ? Can our lives be measured in that fashion. Is there a pass and fail ? I'm not talking about going to heaven or hell, I'm talking about how future generations remember us. Does it matter ? Yes, I believe that it does matter. What we do here and now does matter to the future. The reason is a simple one, because what we do now shapes the future. Each one of us are responsible for that. Oh our part may be just a tiny one, but it is important. We all know that instinctively. It is only the experience of living that may cloud that reality. There are those that get lost, for whatever reason, and just walk away from life. Those of us left behind are grief stricken, shaken to our core by the blow. It is beyond our comprehension. And there are those that just become numb to the whole experience and go about their daily living without thought. Those folks come in all types, good, bad and everything in-between. There are concerned only with the present.
 The rest of us struggle along trying to understand, trying to find success. We need to be successful at life. Just how can that success can be achieved ? A big question and the answer is different for each of us. For me, I think success may go unknown to me in my lifetime. It's a hard reality to accept but I believe a good bet. My success would be to be spoken of after I'm gone. I would want folks to say I knew him and he was this or that. Success would be when they speak of me, it would be followed with a but. You know like, he could be a big pain, BUT,  he was a good guy. That type of but. When a person is honestly described, and then followed with a but, that is a measure of success. A " but "  is an introduction. If I'm being introduced to others, even after my passing, I must have succeeded. Now, if I were to write a book I could also respond to those introductions. Success , life after death.

Resigned

 There are times when it is best to say nothing. I believe that but find it a very difficult thing to do. I suppose it has something to do with my personality. I know, I never shut up, but that is who I am. I'm still learning to live with that. I do feel unsettled when I can't speak. Thing is I know that there are circumstances where it will do little to no good and so the best thing is to say nothing. It's an irritation .
 This morning I find myself in just such a situation. The stuff that is on my mind doesn't need to be shared. And yet, as you can see, I'm writing about not writing ! Maybe I have a problem. Nah, I don't have a problem just an inquisitive nature. I do want to know what others are thinking. I don't always agree with their thoughts but I want to know. I also feel the compulsion to share my thoughts. Thoughts expand when exposed to others. I mean, when you write them or say them out loud they may take on a different meaning or impart a new understanding. Saying nothing feels like a surrender to me. I don't like to surrender. Surrender goes against my nature.
 It is strange that I don't have a win at all costs attitude. If you don't like to surrender, almost refusing to do so, you would think that would have to be the case. It isn't so. Oh, I like to win no doubt about that, don't we all, but I will resign. Resignation is not the same as surrender. That is what I tell myself anyway. So this morning I have resigned myself to not saying a thing.  Of course I had to say that so ?  

Who said that ?

 The quotes I enjoy the most are usually common sense , just with a good vocabulary. I have said it on many occasions and say it again, there is little that can be said that hasn't been said before. Sometimes I get a thought and go look for a quote to support that thought. Funny how that works just about every time. I can find all these " smart " people agreeing with me. There are, of course, just as many quotes I can find to disagree with my thoughts ! So what is that saying ? We all have our own opinions and ideas about things.
 I am amused when I post a quote from a noted author or someone of stature and folks agree on the wisdom. Then I change the vocabulary just a bit, make it sound more folksy so to speak, and get met with opposition and name calling. It is the sheep effect ! If someone famous said it, it must be right. Well it is if you like the celebrity saying it, or they have a name you heard in high school during English lit. Hey, the founding fathers are great to quote from, they said an awful lot and it is all available. Few folks will argue with Jefferson and Monroe. Of course that is on the decline these days as Jefferson had slaves and Monroe was a firebrand.
 " In fine, nothing is said now that has not been said before. Jean Racine " I just looked that up and now I have to look up who Jean Racine is. But I did that to make a point. I have been saying the same thing for quite a while. It isn't an original thought in the universe, it was original in my thinking however. Turns out Jean Racine was a French playwright that died in 1699. Hey, who knew ? Wikipedia did and that is my point. An ancient Roman playwright Terrence said the same thing in 69 BC did Racine plagiarize him ?  Anyone can look that stuff up and start quoting away. Quoting others is not a sign of intelligence.
 I was thinking about this and attaching a quote is akin to attaching those letters after your name, or barring letters, fame. Now as I said I enjoy quotes. I find them a reassurance of my own thoughts. It can be confusing though, I can just as easily find quotes that contradict me. So then, what do I do ? I pick the one author or celebrity that fits my thought. Simple enough isn't it ? I can also find other quotes from that same individual that I disagree with. Fact is I have yet to find anyone I am in total agreement with. I even argue with myself ! The thing is if I can quote a " smart " person or a " celebrity " my own thoughts are more readily accepted. Why do you think that is ? I think the reason is a simple one, it takes less effort. Everybody thinks they know Jefferson but few know this guy Ben. Strange how that works isn't it. If I were to put a PhD after my name my thoughts would be received differently. Well at least to those people that don't know me. I might even get quoted as an authority ! My thoughts wouldn't be any different however. I'd still be Ben. Suppose I wrote a book. Folks might start quoting that as evidence of their own thoughts. See, it is right here, in this book. Funny how all that works isn't it ? We begin to place more credence in what thoughts we can reference, than in our own thoughts.
 " Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. To write what is worth publishing, to find honest people to publish it, and get sensible people to read it, are the three great difficulties in being an author. "  Charles Colton wrote the previous two lines. I am quoting him when I write them. I am in agreement with his sentiment. Do I know Charles Colton ? No, not at all, never heard of him until this very moment. Yet I am quoting him and throwing that name out there like a spear ! What " You don't know who Charles Colton is ? See how that works. I just believe we should give equal credence to the words of every man. The only ones that seem to get quoted are the ones that write it down. I doubt very much if they were the first to say it ! Think about that when talking with your friends and when listening to strangers. The truth is, strangers often expose truths that your friends keep hidden. Listen to " even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. " Do you recognize that ? It is from a famous piece of Prose. I agree with that wholeheartedly as well.  " Understanding is achieved through continued discussion. " Who said that ?
 

an important piece

  I do believe we are all here for a reason. That is something all of us need to believe. If that weren't the case it makes things rather pointless doesn't it ? So having established that much we struggle with a way to measure our contribution. Just how large a contribution are we destined to make ? Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves, first we need to establish expectations. Isn't that what we are being taught these days , to be goal oriented ? So, just what is the goal ? The goal is to fulfill our purpose. Will that happen no matter what we do ? No, because I believe we are also given free choice. If we have free choice then we are not predestined to a specific purpose. And so in that we would have to determine just what our purpose is. That is where all the confusion resides however. We are here for a reason, yet we can change that reason ? Humm, can't have it both ways can you ?
 Can I know what that purpose is ? No, I would have to say I cannot. I would say I can convince myself of a purpose, firmly believe in that purpose but that isn't proof of the purpose. I have said it before and will repeat it, the hardest person to convince is yourself. I believe that if you are completely honest with yourself that statement is true. The validity of your convictions must be substantiated by your private thoughts, not the acknowledgement of a crowd. The difficulty is in realizing the significance of your contribution. That is easy with wealth and fame right ? If everyone says so, it must be true. We all know that isn't right however, although I submit we would all like to find out firsthand. Andy Warhol said everybody gets fifteen minutes of fame, shame we don't get fifteen minutes of wealth too. But are those things the true measure of your contribution ? No, I'd say they aren't but they will get you remembered, and remembered by the masses.
 I'd say we all want our contribution to be significant. At the very least we need to believe that to be so. Isn't that why we believe we are here for a reason ? I believe that anyway. It is difficult for me to believe I am the piece that gets discarded or doesn't play an important role in this thing we call life. Accepting that may be my purpose, just being those things, shouldn't be greeted with a sense of resignation. No, that knowledge should be accepted as a reality. And reality is the hardest thing to accept at times. Maybe that is my purpose after all, to learn to accept reality. We really don't know what came before and what comes after ? We really don't know do we ? But, we are here for a reason ! Aren't we ?

distracting thoughts

 Less than a quarter mile from my backdoor was a place called soakhide. I was told it was a place the Indians, and yes they were Indians to me, not Native Americans, soaked their hides during the tanning process. It was thought this was the job of the squaws. While I lived there I never gave it much thought. Not far from the banks of that dreen, that is what the full name for the place was soakhide dreen, dreen being an old English word for drain, I would gather running pine and princess pine for holiday decorating. I would also ride my bicycle up the center of that dreen. The bottom was hard in the center, a sandy color and my wheels didn't sink in much. The water was a bit brackish. In all the years I lived there I never did follow that dreen back to its' source. There were other dreens around as well, although I wasn't familiar with them. On the opposite side of the road from soakhide dreen there was what I called a trench. It was obviously manmade. About a foot wide and two foot deep it ran through the woods to where I don't know. Followed it some when I was a kid but never to its' end either. Mysterious things but I felt no compulsion to explore them or learn much more about either of those dreens. Now that I am older and don't live there anymore I am curious. Isn't that how it always works ?
 Now soakhide was also the name of the road it could be found on. In fact the dreen went under that road and entered three mile harbor at that point. I seldom explored the three mile harbor side as the water was much deeper there. Where that water ran out it had hollowed out the bank quite a bit making a deep hole. I spent quite a bit of time on soakhide. My aunt and uncle lived on that road, a friend of mine lived on that road, a man named Charlie Fanning lived there and then there were the summer folks too. On the far corner of soakhide was Mary's store. That is what we called it anyway. It was owned by Mary Damark and as far as I know that is the only name I remember it being called. Mary's sister, Margaret had a bar just down the road from there. Maggies' we called that although the name was really Ambrose's. It was at Maggie's I drank my first legal beer. It was on the house, as I recall as Maggie knew my father from his younger, shall we say, wilder days. By the time I was 18 that place was on the decline, as all bars eventually become old, replaced by the next generation hot spot ! No fun drinking with your parents and grandparents ! I would see Ambrose's change hands and become popular again. But, I hear all that has changed yet again. Things seem to change a lot faster these days, even the watering holes. I'm guessing they will soon be replaced by dens. The Chinese had opium dens, guess we will have marijuana dens. Hang out and smoke. Well, they say it is progress, a cure for alcoholism. Well, I won't go into any of that.
 I'm not sure what made me think of all that this morning. Maybe it is just because I'm trying to distract myself. I can't completely ignore what is going on but I can try to minimize its' effect on me. I do need a break from all the nonsense I keep hearing in the news. So I'll think about soakhide dreen and the old stomping grounds instead. Things were good back then. I was blissfully unaware of what was going on around me. Isn't it nice to be young ? Problem is you do have to grow up. I'm a little nervous right now because it seems a lot of folks are refusing to do that. Well, it'll happen one day, just hope it isn't too late.  

calmer waters

 I wonder when we will all see calmer waters ? That is what I am thinking about this morning. The last year or so the seas have certainly been stormy ones. Seems like one wave after another came crashing down on our social conscience. Terror attacks, hate crimes, night club shootings, the police under attack, and then Trump wins the election. It has been quite the voyage so far. And the storm rages on. I just can't help but wonder, what will happen next ? Surely there must be a calm that follows the tsunami that is Trump. And that isn't a commentary of him one way or another, just an acknowledgement of his impact. Only time will reveal whether he leaves a path of destruction or clears the way for growth. All of these things can be viewed in either way. You know you have to stir the batter to make a cake !
 There have been many discussion taking place, but little has been settled. The left, if that is how you choose to describe them, really wanted to stay with the status quo. Just keep on going and giving without strife or struggle. It is much easier that way. They assigned some of their best scholars to justify the unjust. They labeled it " freedom " and " choice " hijacking those terms from the American vocabulary and perverting the meanings of each. Then having lost the election they search for ways to circumvent that very result. The left has " circled the wagons " and decided to fight. What they fail to understand is the battle is over. The ones on the right are moving forward leaving those circled wagons to fend for themselves, all the while being constantly harassed by those from the left but moving forward nonetheless. In an ironic twist to the commentary, the right shall preserver !
 All of that is what I was thinking about this morning. That led me to wonder when will we see calmer waters ? How can we find our way out of the storm ? The usual way is for some other dramatic event to happen. Those on the left wishing for the downfall of Trump. I would have to say an assignation attempt is not out of the question, things have gotten that rough. No doubt the proverbial pot has been stirred. I'm watching with trepidation . I m afraid for our children and grandchildren. We have reached a pivotal point in history regarding the United States of America. We will either reaffirm our dominance and status in the global community, or be redefined ! I made a short posting on Facebook, that social platform that feeds a great deal of this trepidation and anger, about my hope for America. I hope that one day our descendants will read our history and shake their heads in disbelief. How could America ever feel like the murder of innocent children was a viable choice ? I want them to not understand that at all. That thought should be as repulsive to them as the thought of owning slaves is to us today. Yes, at one time in America our social conscience allowed for that as well. We did grow and learn. Growth should be accompanied by maturity ! There is a large section of the population that fails to understand that. With maturity common sense flourishes. The three are intertwined. I'm just worried. What is it going to take to make folks snap out of it.  I don't think it is going to be pleasant.  

navigate your course

 Some of us spend our lives looking out and others looking in. It is a basic part of our personalities I think. As for me, I'm looking in. I've always been a little on the outside of things. I spend more time observing than participating. I don't just go with the crowd. Maybe that is why I was never one for fad or fashion. I'd be looking and sometimes it just looked silly. Long hair was one of those things. Not that my parents would have allowed it, but I've always thought it was rather a foolish thing for a man. Just not practical in my opinion, and I'm not wearing any pony tails ! It is an individual choice and more power to you if you want that. I mention that as an illustration of " looking in. " I was detached from that cultural shift even though I lived through it. The whole hippie thing. It looked like fun, I won't deny that, but I saw more than that. Well the view was different from my perch. All of that plays a part in it, what I would call your cultural heritage. I've just never felt like an insider. Insiders always seem like conspirators to me and I don't like conspiracy. It just has that whole dishonest feel to it, dirty some how. Could that be a result of being told to be leery of those " from away " as the saying went ? I did wonder what folks were afraid of with those outsiders ? Yet, I didn't feel like an insider, a part of the conspiracy, I was on the outside even then. Further observation on my part has proven the validity of that caution, yes, those outsiders should have been held at bay but economics dictated otherwise.  
 The problem with looking in is that you are looking at the past. I find that true for me anyway. I'm looking in trying to see what I was told would be there. I was told to look and listen. I'm not easily convinced about things. I need to see some evidence first. Evidence by its' very nature always exists in the past. So that is why I'll never be cutting edge. Thing is the cutting edge gets dull. Then you have to keep looking for something else. I strive to be consistent and reliable. The reason is a simple one, those are the qualities I most admire in a person. I want someone I can count on, every time. I like to know what I've got. If you want to build a life you need a solid foundation. If the foundation is strong the rest of it can weather the storms that come along. Randy Travis wrote a song called the Storms of Life, this is the chorus,
I'd better change my wandrin ways,
I know I've seen my better days,
Always gettin' high when I get low
Well, I left my soul out in the rain,
Lord, what a price I've had to pay
The storms of life are washin' me away
I believe he was talking about just that. If you are always wandering around, looking out for the next road to take, you will get lost. It may seem exciting and fun for a while but the price must be paid. If I am going to pay a price I'd like to know just what it is I am buying. It is a cautious approach to life. The funny thing is I have never thought of myself as a cautious person. The truth is I have conservative values. Stranger still is nowadays those values are being questioned ? Of course I realize that has always been the case. All throughout the history of man that has been so. Do we not say, you need to be on the cutting edge ? To be otherwise is to be perceived as backwards. Looking back ? Yes, I like to look back, to look in, rather than stare outside wondering what is there.
  The word for that is introspection. It is something I was doing long before I even knew the word for it. As I said I believe it is just a part of our basic personality. I don't believe a person can change that about themselves either. Your personality conforms to your soul is my thinking. The two are inextricably linked. One can spend their lifetime trying to separate them but you will not be successful. As Randy Travis said, the storms of life will wash you away. If you are aware of that, spend that time in introspection, the storms can be lessened. The storms of life will come, no matter what, but you can be prepared. The best way to do that is by looking to the past and seeing what works. Try not to get caught up in the crowd and navigate your own course is my advice. Yes, there are times we should change course but that shouldn't happen often. I've made a few adjustments myself.        

the paradox of living

 We have all had our moments. Good ones, bad ones and ones we would rather forget but we've had moments. We are sometimes reminded by others of our moments. It is the idea of a finest moment I am thinking about this morning. Nothing in particular comes to mind and so I thought, have I had my finest moment and don't even know it ? The possibility exists. At your finest hour I would think you shouldn't be aware of that. I mean, consider a heroic act. They are never planned or scripted events, they just happen. In fact for many of those events if you knew what was in store, you wouldn't have done it. Heroic deeds are impulses from your soul urging you forward. But I'm not thinking of heroics either, I'm just thinking of the everyday happenings in our lives.
 I do believe we are given chances every day to have a moment. It may be as mundane as helping a senior citizen with the door, or saying a kind word. Those are moments. They are moments to the one receiving them, and appreciated, for the most part. Then there are the moments that are significant to you. It is those moments that we remember. I wonder though if they are our finest ? I guess that depends upon your disposition. Which gives you greater pleasure, helping others, or your own accomplishments ? We all know the answer but how many will tell it ? It is a bit of a paradox. It has been my experience that true heroes are the reluctant ones. They would just as soon not be recognized as it is of little importance to them. There are others that strive for that recognition. For those I think that recognition is a form of validation. They have a need for that before their contemporaries.
 It is easy to list some great memories and moments in my life. The difficulty lies in determining my finest. Although I am not one to have a large circle of friends I do think of myself as a member of a group. Sounds a little corny, I know, but I am an American. That is what comes to mind first and I can further refine it from there. I served in the Navy for twenty years. Strangest thing about that is my favorite memory of that is retiring. It was a goal reached reluctantly and then met with a sense of sadness instead of relief.  I did get my " moment in the sun " but so does everyone else that stays around long enough.
 My finest moment ? No, I don't think it was. I can't say I've done anything heroic. I did give artificial respiration to a co-worker years ago and resuscitated him. Not a heroic feat just a product of training. Really no different than shutting off the water if you're a plumber. Just something you know how to do. So just what is a finest moment ? I'd have to say it is a collection of small insignificant actions taken over the course of  a lifetime. In the town where I was raised we had a phrase that summed all of that up. It would be said, " he was the finest kind. "  That person didn't just have a finest moment, he had the finest life. A person that was kind, generous, understanding, honest, straightforward, hardworking, compassionate and all those traits that are good. Simply put, a friend to all. Something to aspire to. Not aspiring to a moment, but rather to a lifetime. An end met with reluctance and accompanied by sadness. An end that is your final " moment. " Another little paradox in life, the reward comes later. I wonder if we'll know it ?

in the meantime

 It is a question I ask myself almost daily, to what end ? We are all here on this earth together, the living , the dying and the dead, and to what purpose ? Now that isn't meant to sound melancholy but I suppose it is. That isn't the way I am feeling as I write these thoughts though, I'm just questioning. I like to know the answers. If I ever find them I'll be sure to share. I do believe we are all here for a reason, none of us are accidents. Miracles don't happen by accident. I think you would have to agree that the creation of life is a miraculous thing. I'm not going to launch into a discussion about abortion and how wrong that choice is but rather I am thinking about our purpose. I don't mean individual purpose however, I mean what is mans' role in all of this ? God, as I believe God to be, created all that we see and all that we don't see. God created us all, but why ? God can create whatever he likes in a perfect form so why did he create such imperfect beings as ourselves ? That is the question, to what end ?
 Perhaps the answer is the obvious one, there isn't an end. As I have hypothesized in previous blogs I do think we are nothing more than energy, at least that is how I describe the soul. Energy can not be destroyed, only transformed from one state to another. It logically follows then there wouldn't be an end. Men think of an end because our lives are finite, at least to our perception they are. Infinity is a concept that humanity cannot wrap our collective minds around. Think of space, is there an end ? That's infinite right ? Even if space is a circle, enormous in size, our minds say there has to be an inside and outside, there has to be a boundary.
 If we are energy, energy must act upon something to cause change. What I'm wondering about is what are we ( man, energy ) acting upon ? What is the change we are supposed to affect with our lives ? Do each of us have an individual purpose or is it supposed to be a collective effort ? If that collective goal, whatever that may be, was reached, would that then be the end ? I believe that man can neither create or destroy energy but that doesn't mean God can't. Perhaps the goal is to change the state of that energy I call the soul. Then the question becomes, to what state ? Are we potential energy or kinetic ? I'd say we must be kinetic as we are traveling from one place to another. Makes no difference where we came from or where we are going really, we are in motion. Isn't that the perception ?
 The question remains unanswered however, what is it that we are acting upon ? If we are not acting upon something then we would have to be potential energy. Surely we are more than storage containers for energy. That may explain why we come and go however, as we are needed. Could explain why some of us live long lives and others are taken too soon. But that too, is dependent upon our perception of things. Do we store the most energy at birth or at death ? You could say at birth our potential is the greatest and at death we have exhausted that potential. You could just as easily say the potential remains unchanged until it is acted upon by the one that created that energy ! In that scenario I will never know for what end I was created. It is in that I will have to remain content. I'll be called upon when I am needed. The choice I am left with is, what to do in the meantime.

Catalouging ?

 I had a Facebook friend notice something in one of my pictures. It was a powder horn. I have it hanging on a nail in my staircase. It is a very plain , utilitarian powder horn. It would have been great had it been carved and had someone famous associated with it. Sadly, that is far from the case. I can't really say too much about its' history. It came from my Great Grandfathers house. That is the extent of my knowledge. Was it his or someone else's ? I can't say for sure it was even the possession of one of my ancestors. Great Grandfather had a habit of collecting stuff, just bringing it home because it was free or he found it. The old folks didn't throw much away you know, you just never know what you might need. Hey, that man had balls of string, jars of buttons and saved tin foil. Not that it was uncommon that for his generation, but he did hold onto to things.
 Along with that powder horn I do have a few other artifacts that the history of is shrouded a bit. I know a small piece of it, but that is all. Having that powder horn mentioned got me to thinking about that stuff. If these items were displayed in a museum they would have a description attached to them. They would contain the facts known to the curator. Well you could say I am the curator of this museum. I can't help but think a little more information about these items would certainly increase the interest in them. There is no way I can gather any real factual information about them as those folks in the know have long since passed on. With those folks the history of those items passed as well.
 The thing is, it is a temptation. I could just attach some story, as long as I kept it credible, to those items and no one the wiser. That would be dishonest however and I would feel a tinge of guilt each time the story was told. I was just wondering though, does anyone else feel that way ? I mean. do you make up a story to go with your " treasures " even when the details are a bit sketchy ? I do try to remain completely honest but will embellish that truth with a good assumption. For instance I have a belt and buckle that is from the civil war era. My third great grandfather did serve in the war, in the 127th NY Infantry. That belt and buckle came from his house, I was told it was his property. I can't prove that conclusively but display it as such anyway. After a lot of research I have reached a conclusion about that artifact. It is my belief he purchased that some time after the war as part of his uniform for his participation with the Grand Army of the Republic. That organization was the precursor to the Veterans of Foreign War. It disbanded when the last union soldier in the civil war passed away. Remarkably that didn't happen until 1956 with the death of Albert Woolson at the age of 109 ! I don't believe that belt and buckle ever saw any active duty service. Does it make it any less valuable to me ? Absolutely not, but it would be better if it was battle scared from Gettysburg ! That powder horn would also be " cooler " if it had belonged to Daniel Boone.
 It is my intent to write a small narrative about all the items I have. What I mean is the ones I feel will be saved and passed to the next generation. How exactly I can determine that I haven't quite figured out. I'm thinking I can write a small narrative with whatever factual information I can provide no matter how disappointing that information may be. Still I think it might be interesting to those in the future and appreciated. I know I sure wish more information was provided to me about some of these items I have. I expect at the time it wasn't a big deal. What I am thinking is like you are given something as a birthday gift. A big deal at that moment but what about the next year or fifty years later ? Wouldn't the person fifty years later like to know that information ? I would.
 I do think about this stuff. I also feel a little funny about cataloguing my stuff. Do you know what I mean ? It does give a sense of finality about things. I do think that I should photograph the item, place that photograph in a book along with the history associated with the item. Does seem awful final though when you consider it. Am I getting that old that I need to start a museum to display my life ? Yikes, I don't like that thought at all. Maybe I'll give this some more thought before proceeding. What do you think ?

first item in catalogue. history is written on the back.

personal health

  The big topic of discussion is the proposed health care plan from Trump and his administration. The complete repeal of Obamacare is what was promised. I don't think that is going to happen though, just some modifications to the plan. Health insurance is like anything else, basic in its' design and so similarities between plans will always exist. What I'm saying is, a Yugo and a Cadillac are both cars. And right now we have all the experts shouting to the rooftops about what is required, indeed what some are calling mandatory and a basic human right ! That's right, health insurance is a basic human right ! I disagree, health care is a privilege, not a right. Access to affordable health care is a noble goal no doubt about that, but a right ? I don't think so, not in a free market society it isn't. Socialized medicine belongs in a socialist society. Seems clear enough to me and I wonder how so many get confused about that. The goal of the government should not be to have everyone insured to pay the cost of healthcare. The goal should be to lower the cost of healthcare to affordable levels. Having insurance companies continue funding whatever the cost is never going to lower that cost. Not a difficult thing to understand. All that accomplishes is the financing of our healthcare. We all have to buy car insurance. Has that lowered the cost of a car ? I don't think so. And when those companies pay out do they still profit ? Of course they do and so do medical insurance companies. The government of the United States is not in the insurance business. Why then should the government finance them ? What profit is being made ? None, it is an expenditure. The government should be working towards reducing those expenditures. That is what responsible government is all about.
 Now I don't have any suggestions as to how to accomplish that task. If I did I would be an instant celebrity. I believe in a free market and as few regulations as possible. How can the government drive the cost of healthcare down ? That is the sticky wicket isn't it  ? Everyone agrees that everybody should have access to healthcare whether they are rich or poor. To believe otherwise is just unchristian. Of course we must remember that we are not a Christian nation right ? Or is that conditional depending on your financial resources ? What I mean is, should I be forced to be charitable ? If I am being forced to pay into a health care system that provides benefits to those that don't contribute, how can that be viewed any differently ? A forced morality ? On the other hand how can we question the ethics of the medical community as it relates to costs ? Shall we tell a Doctor he or she can only charge a set amount for a procedure ? Can we impose penalties on them for that ? Obamacare imposed a penalty on those that chose not to buy insurance. Basically you were being fined for not supporting an insurance company. The sword cuts both ways.
 With the forced buying of insurance what were we saying ? We were saying you can't be trusted to be responsible for yourself. The government knows what is best for you. You must be insured because we are going to provide the service whether you can pay of not ! We know, given the choice, you will not act responsibly. Insurance will be the last thing on your list of necessary items. Yes, you will want to eat, pay your rent, drive a car, have a cell phone and a flat screen television before you are concerned with what might happen. The government has to control you, for your own good !
 I'm no expert on Obamacare or any other health care program. I can't speak with authority but am definitely opposed to any forced buying of a service by the government. I also firmly believe in personal accountability. How many could afford that insurance if it what they really wanted ? Strange how the Casinos aren't lacking for customers, or all the state lotteries, no liquor stores going out of business, and tattoo parlors are doing a booming business. Seems like a lot of folks can afford all of that without government subsidy. Or is it because of government subsidy that they can afford those things ? Maybe we should figure out some way to reduce the government subsidy to those folks and divert it to healthcare. How about we finance a national health care system on selling dope. Even the poorest of the poor can buy that. Maybe we could legalize Pot and Prostitution and funnel the proceeds into that system. Why not, we are slowly inching that way anyhow. What about a percentage of all profits from the Casinos ? That is, of course if you believe the government should be responsible for your choices. Or we could just say all money goes into a central government and we all get issued a check once a month. The government will determine how much you need. Health care is free, food is free, everything is free. Just do whatever you like, it's your right ! The government is responsible, not you. Isn't that the utopia the left dreams about.  

it takes time

 If you are unwilling to change yourself, how can you expect to change the world ? That is what came to mind as I sat at this keyboard this morning. Am I willing to change ? Well that is a big question to grapple with at 5:30 in the morning. I'm thinking this will take a few cups of coffee. The real decision to be made is do I need to change ? From that I would have to ask change for what reason ? Would that reason be to the benefit of myself, or to the society in general ? Weighty questions indeed ? It doesn't take much thought to know that I should make some changes, nobody is perfect. But, what to change ? I can't abandon my basic beliefs and tenets. It has taken 63 years to gain them after all. It is a bit of a catch 22 isn't it ?
 I see folks wanting change. I also see they want government to make those changes. Those folks are on the left. Their concept of change has little to do with personal accountability, and everything to do with government. They are obsessed with legislation making everyone equal and other noble causes. They attempt to legislate away racism, sexism, and all manner of ism's. Many don't actually take personal responsibility for any of that, viewing it solely as a social issue. That is always the way of the left. The problem with social change is that it must happen one person at a time. Social change is a gradual process. Like spoiled children the left want it now ! And will throw a tantrum when they don't get it, calling it activism. The left are experts on ism's you know.
 Now I am a bit more conservative in my values. I do base my decisions on those precepts that I  learned from my Bible. I'm not a Bible toting evangelist, that is certain. Nor do I regularly proclaim my Christianity to the world. I really feel no need to do so. The Bible, as many of our founding fathers agreed, is the most important book of all. Yes, it is a book that should be studied and lessons learned from that study. The first lesson is personal accountability. God gives us free choice and it is in that choice that accountability lies. What was Jesus trying to accomplish ? Social change is the short answer. He certainly advocated for all the things those on the left are so riled up about today. It has been a couple thousand years and man is still working on those changes. Notice Jesus didn't advocate for social activism ! He didn't teach that you should riot and make demands upon the society. No, he was all about accepting personal responsibility. That is also why many on the left try to exclude Jesus and the Bible from the conversation altogether. And short of that, they reinterpret the Bible to suit their purposes.
 We have to do as Jesus taught. We must change people one at a time. Without getting too preachy he did say, " no one comes to the father unless by me " , and that is one at a time. That is what I believe anyway. The United States of America has always been known as the melting pot. What is it that we are melting ? Culture is what is being melted. Cultures being transformed into a common culture. At least that was so in the beginning. That was back when folks emigrated to America to become a part of the American dream. They were willing to change, to discard pieces of their culture in favor of the American ideal. Just what is that ideal ? To live freely in a society and work for the common good . It has little to do with government, but everything to do with personal accountability.
 I don't believe anyone can deny that we have made progress in America. Everyone does have equal rights. Many on the left fail to understand that equal rights and equal opportunity does not mean equal results ! Again a matter of personal choices made. Freedom does not mean you are free to just do as you please. There are moral standards associated with a society.  Virtue is also of paramount importance if a society is to survive. Abandon either of those and the society will degenerate. And where do we derive those morals and virtues ? What Book can we learn that from ? “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, October 11, 1798.) It was true in 1798 and remains true to this day. You can not legislate morality or virtue. Those must be taught and then adopted by the populace.
 To answer the question I poised at the start of this piece, If you are unwilling to change yourself, how can you expect to change the world, I would answer, you can not. How easily can you change ? In my experience the things you believe deeply in your heart are very difficult to change. If you find something quite easy to change, it wasn't that important to you in the first place. So it really isn't a matter of being unwilling, but the effort you are willing to put forth to affect that change. The change must begin with you. Are you willing to riot and cause a big fuss for a short time ? Or will you spend your life trying to set the example and teaching your children the lessons contained in the Bible ?  When it comes to morals and ethical behavior that must be taught, not legislated.

getting to know

 As anyone that reads my blogs knows I love history and working on the family tree. I have a decent collection of old photographs. The majority of those pictures I knew the people personally, others I heard stories about growing up, and a few I have recovered from the dark past. I have searched for information about all these folks. I have learned facts about those in the distant past and in a few instances some personal stuff as well. That stuff I gleaned from old newspaper articles, obituaries and other sources. I remember the stories I was told about the old folks, the ones my parents and grandparents knew. A few of those folks held me when I was a baby and I have no remembrance of that. There are others I do remember from my childhood. Sadly many of those folks are gone now. There are times when I look in the mirror and realize I'm getting to be the old guy now ! It hits home each time I read a notice of someone's passing. I don't have to have known the person, all I have to do is read the age. When that age is close to mine it gives me pause. I'm reminded that my father is gone, one brother of mine is gone, grandparents all gone. Well, you get the idea. It does make me think about my life. I've been here for 63 years. It doesn't sound very long at all, but I'm more than halfway for sure. I have seen many younger than myself leave this world.
 As I glanced up at the pictures that surround me at my desk I had this thought. I've only been here sixty three years but have some knowledge of one hundred and fifty or more. I have gathered those pictures and information to the point I feel like I know most of them. It's true that some are only an acquaintance, but I am related to almost every one. I do have a few old friends around. I can see my father in his uniform from WW2 and feel like I have been there myself. I see my great grandmother working at her rag rug loom and I can relate to that. There are pictures and memories everywhere. So I'm thinking I can say I have been around a lot longer than my sixty three years. I believe that can be said for us all in one sense. If you remember a story that was told to you about an ancestor, is that still a memory of that ancestor ? Or would you say it is a memory of a story that was told to you ? For me, I think of it as a memory of that ancestor. That is especially true if the one that told me that story are themselves departed. Strange how that works isn't it ? Stranger still how we like to take credit for the past. I mean, my 2nd great grandfather was a whaler. I say that with a degree of pride, although it recent years not so much, but why should I feel any credit for what he did ? I don't know, in recent years their seems to be a feeling I should also be responsible for any wrongdoing those ancestors may have done. That is being felt to the point of making reparations for those ancestors ! An incredible idea if you really think about that.
 I don't know why this thought came to me this morning. Physically I have been here for 63 years but spiritually, and I'm not certain that is the correct term, I have been here much longer. No, I don't feel like I have lived other lives before this one, that isn't the feeling at all. It is more a sense that I have been watching. I just have a sense of those that came before me. That sense came from the old stories and pictures. It may come from thinking about them. It has been said no one dies as long as their name is spoken. I agree with that sentiment. Perhaps speaking those names of the past has kept them alive, at least to me, and therefore I feel like I know them. With that feeling I have added years to my past, years before 1953 ! I can look at a picture, even one taken long before my birth, and get a feeling from that picture, almost as though I am there. It is comforting the majority of the time but there are moments of creepiness ! Memories from a past I didn't live ? Maybe I've been reading too much Stephen King.
 Whatever the case, I feel a compulsion to continue assembling the past. I'm trying to get it all together. To what purpose ? Of that I'm not certain, but it doesn't make a difference to me. Maybe I just don't want to show up in the next life as a stranger. I'd rather be among old friends and family.

Distracted

 This thought came to me yesterday while responding to someone on my blog posting. I began to think that perhaps part of the problem we have today is that we are too distracted. Was a time when you had a book,  you studied that book, you didn't just read it. That was true when books were a bit of a scarcity. Books were highly valued and treated with respect. The Bible was the most studied book of all ! Following the Bible there were books about law, philosophy and science. Yes, there were novels written for entertainment as well. The thing was, most folks could only afford a few books and so had to be selective. But, what I'm thinking about is how folks back then really studied those books. There wasn't the distraction of radio, television, internet and all that stuff. I mean, what else was there to do ? It occurs to me that may be the problem we are having now. Too many folks reading books, listening to the news pundits, and watching videos but never really forming an opinion of their own. They are so distracted by it all they don't think about it at all ! It really is the forest for the trees syndrome.
 We are getting a population that just wants to be entertained all the time. Kids have always said, I'm bored, there is nothing to do. I said it, my kids said it, and it is being said somewhere today. In my youth I had books, radio and television. Video games weren't available to me until 1972. I played board games a lot and yes, read books. Those were really my entertainment choices. Outside of school there were few programs for children to participate in. The church had a basketball team. I can honestly say I don't remember anything else. Well, the red cross gave swimming lessons. Some kids went to camp but they were the exception. It certainly wasn't thought of as the normal thing to do. At least not in my world it wasn't. I lived outside of town with few neighbors. I did learn to entertain myself, sometimes by reading books !
 Now that isn't meant to sound like I'm any smarter than anyone else. I had plenty of other things to entertain me. I went fishing, clamming and played in the woods. I was definitely distracted from studying. There were rainy days when I stayed indoors and I would read. We had a whole set of classic books that came with the encyclopedia set. I read all of those. Those encyclopedias also came with the home medical companion and a book on science. They could be entertaining as well, especially the medical one. There were also days when it was nice outside but there was no one around and so I was bored, there was nothing to do. What I wound up doing was thinking about stuff. I began to form my own opinions and ideas about life. Maybe that is why I seldom jump on the bandwagon. I much prefer my own parade. As I mentioned in yesterdays post, the really smart people I have read, and the ones I have listened to seldom quote other folks to justify their thoughts. It does appear to me that is a popular method to employ today. I justify my statements by quoting someone else's ! To me that holds about as much weight as quoting the Bible to an atheist ! Unless the other person holds the person being quoted in equal regard, it doesn't mean much at all. That in itself is a distraction from having to think for yourself. I certainly hold independent thought in greater regard than someone just quoting others. You know I've read about some of those supposed " scholars " and don't agree with them at all. At least not everything they said, just like real people. Amazing isn't it ? Just because Jefferson or Monroe said it doesn't mean I have to agree.
 What I'm trying to say here is I hear a lot of parrots these days. They are certainly good at repeating whatever they have heard. Then they use those statements to justify their own actions, or lack of them. This is especially true when that something benefits them on a personal level. The government should provide free everything, the government should take care of me and all that nonsense. Now it's a crime to hate somebody ! Isn't that what they call it, a hate crime ? Really, have you given that any thought at all ? People don't commit crimes against you because they love you and we need a law to explain that. Maybe we should give that concept a little more thought, like letting boys in the girls room ! Have we become so distracted that we can't recognize reality anymore ? I find that troubling. We have a steady stream of information rushing at us, so much so we can't process it. We are just too busy being entertained by it all. We have begun to operate on emotion rather than reason Emotion can rally the troops, but emotions make poor generals !
 You know just repeating whatever it is that you have read or heard is not understanding it. You really do have to think about it. Call me a cynic if you will, but folks are motivated by financial gain and social status more than anything else. I have seen this time and again. I would love to believe otherwise, but there are so few examples. And what is the big cause today ? We all want a bigger piece of the pie don't we ? We want everything to be fair. The pundits attach politically correct sounding names to the various pieces of legislation. The purpose is to arouse emotions ! Stir the sheep to action. Sadly, it is working all too well. The Indians drove buffalo over the cliff in much the same fashion. The result will be the same. I say it is time to just calm down, think about it for a while. Concentrate. Don't be distracted so easily.   

co-existance

 To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. ( James Madison )
 I ran across this quote and thought to myself, hey, that is what I've been saying for a while now. I admit to not knowing the word Chimerical right off, had to think on that one and check it out in the dictionary. In case your vocabulary is a little rusty it means, a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve. I would say pipe dreams in place of that word, still I like the word and more importantly agree with the sentiment. Those old guys were pretty smart weren't they ? I believe they were  and it was a result of reading books and learning. That was followed by contemplation of what they had learned. Ever notice how those folks seldom quoted anyone else ? That is because they were expressing their own thoughts. Something I believe we need more of today. Seems to me all the " smart " folks do these days is quote other people and wave their degrees around as proof of how smart they feel they have become. You know completing a course of study with a passing grade doesn't mean you learned anything. It just means I can repeat back what someone else already knows.
 It is the notion of virtue as the guiding force that interests me. Well, to me it isn't a notion at all but a reality. James Madison thought so too. Madison talked about the separation of church and state and the necessity of that. He said it was a necessity to prevent all the wars and bloodshed in Europe from happening here. I'd say he was correct about that. We did have a civil war but that was economics more than anything else. It wasn't religiously motivated. Both sides in that conflict where calling upon the same God to secure victory for their side ! That happened a lot in Europe too. It is true the Europeans did have the occasional dust up with the Muslims. Madison also said, “ Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by [Religious] Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in history.” And that is what we can see happening today. Make no mistake about it, this Religion of Islam does wish to encroach upon the government, that is this Sharia Law we hear so much about.  " Sharia, Islamic sharia or Islamic law is the religious legal system governing the members of the Islamic faith. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation. " That is the definition if you goggle it. Notice it is a system of Law ! Notice it has nothing to do with what the people decide upon but everything to do with what a Prophet said. I'm certainly no expert on the laws that imposes upon the people, but I do know they are in stark contrast to the liberties we enjoy in America. And therein lies the problem.
 Madison said it and so do I, virtue is the vital component in establishing liberty and happiness among people. Religion is not virtue. Virtue is high moral standards. And from where do we get those moral standards ? The founding fathers all agreed, we are endowed with them by the creator. That was one reason for not having a state religion !  The Torah and the Bible do not provide civil penalties for a failure to worship God. Nor do those texts promise any material rewards for the advancement of their teaching. Jews and Christians are not promised money, slaves, concubines and social status for defeating people of a different faith. That is the issue with this religion of Islam. They provide for all of those things in their Sharia law. That law cannot exist within our society. It really is that simple. The reason is obvious, Sharia law is contrary to the virtues we treasure so greatly in America.  Religion should not be law ! It offends our sensibilities. In America we certainly don't shy away from making civil penalties for breaking the law, but it is Civil law that concerns us. The voice of the people, not the voice of a prophet !
 Can you have Islam without Sharia law ? That I don't have enough knowledge about to say one way or the other. It just appears to me that you could not. Either you are listening to and following the Prophet, or you are not. Can you be a Christian and only believe part of what Jesus taught ? Note I said believe, not practice, as we all fall short in the practice department, few of us will reach the expert level. The difference again is in the penalty. Jews and Christians only have to answer to their God, the Muslims have to answer to a court here on earth for those moral infractions. I understand that is pretty general in nature, but I believe it boils the problem down some.
 Muslims believe that God revealed books to His messengers as proof for mankind and as guidance for them. Among these books is the Qur'an, which  God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad . God has guaranteed the Qur'an’s protection from any change. I learned that from an explanation of Islam's basic beliefs. The other five basic beliefs are pretty much the same as Christians and Jews believe. So there it is, if you removed the stuff the Prophet Mohamed wrote down as law that is what you would have, Christianity. But Mohamed made this religion they call Islam. So, if you don't believe Mohamed you don't believe in Islam.
 Well that is my thinking anyway. This religion of Islam is also a system of government. And what did Madison say about that,  To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness
without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical  idea. Yup, I agree and do say that it is a pipedream to believe the two could co-exist in a free society. Fire and water both exist but cannot be intermingled. Is one superior to the other ? Doesn't really make any difference does it ? The point is they can't mix. There is only room for one form of government in our nation, or any nation for that matter. To recognize the legitimacy of any other " law " other than the one instituted by the people negates the legitimacy of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Remember Muslims believe the Quran, which the prophet says is protected from change by God. Yes and there are some that say our Constitution should be changed and we the people can do that. You can't change the Quran !  A government that can not be changed ? Don't think I want that.

friends and company

 I don't have a lot of close friends. I never have and most likely never will. There are many reasons for this that I'm sure a doctor could analyze. Personally I think it is simply because I don't surround myself with folks that just agree with whatever I say. To me, that would have to be the most boring existence of all. Well unless I had millions of dollars to go with them, then I could handle that. Even then I think I would probably be firing a lot of folks all the time. You shouldn't have to work at keeping friends, if you do, there is something wrong. Sure you will make mistakes, errors in judgement now and again that may strain that friendship but they shouldn't be deal breakers every time. Nor should you just concede to maintain that friendship. Yes it is true your circle of friends may be small as a result, but they will be the people you can count on.
 We have a " friends " list on Facebook these days. That is a bit off a misnomer if ever there was one. My list isn't very large at all compared to many of the folks I know. I've even known folks to have competition to see how many " friends " they can gather. I do think that trend has subsided a great deal now that we also have to be concerned with hacking. I accepted a friend request yesterday only to discover it wasn't my friend at all. Had to change my password and hope for the best. It isn't my " friends " fault just part of everyday life on social media. Maybe we should have an acquaintance list instead. That list would be for those folks we aren't really friends with.
 Remember in the old days when you would be put on " speed dial " if you were a close friend ? The friends list could be like that, a more stringent vetting, to use the popular term today, would get you moved up to that list.
 Never being one for fad or fashion I wasn't part of the in crowd growing up. For reasons I can't explain I was just never interested in that stuff. Oh, I tried to be " cool " and all but not to extremes. It always struck me as a bit phony. Fad and fashion is nothing more than copying what someone else has already done. I just don't see the point in that. I also didn't want to set my own fashion or start a new fad. Oh, there were a few instances where my fashion choices were questionable. If you knew me in high school you would have noticed. For the most part however I was just in the mainstream, swimming along non descript. I hung out with a small group of friends, well truth be told two small groups of friends. I just floated between the two groups. I had the uptown group and the downtown group. Two worlds really.
 I like to think of myself as confident. Yup, I'm not ashamed of who or what I am at all. This is me, take it or leave it. That is the attitude I was taught. My father was the same way, you either liked him or got mad at him all the time. He was a man you went to if you wanted to get something done though. A man of action. Dad wasn't much for discussion. We differ in that regard I'll talk about whatever until the cows come home. If my mind is made up you won't change it. Stubborn is what some folks call it, I call it confidence. I do think I have become less combative in recent years. Hot headed ? I've been accused of that. It is seldom that I quit and just dismiss another person. Mostly folks quit on me. That's alright, it is their life to live after all.
 As I said I have few friends. Thing is I'm never lonely though. I find myself to be good company. That's why I don't get it when others don't. I'm honest, straightforward and sincere. All the things people say they admire in a person right up until they meet that person. Strange isn't it ? Guess I just don't go along with everything and have a different opinion. One thing I have learned from going along with the crowd is I usually get lost. The crowd and the cool kids have led me away from the things I knew to be correct. I can't take those things back, there are a part of my history but I did learn from them. I got trampled by the crowd ! So I have slowed down a bit, keeping a safe distance and getting a better view in the process. Yes, it is easier to just go with the crowd, gain popularity and be compliant. I don't recommend it though. Better to retain integrity than to gain a " friend " is my advice. If you require a lot of friends to be happy, it is because you don't like your own company  much.
 There are friends and there is company. I enjoy company, I wouldn't deny that. People fascinate me most of the time. Granted there are times when they annoy me just as easily. Company however, you can leave, just walk away. Company is not so important. Friends are more than company though, friends are really family. Your friends are the family you choose. They can annoy you but they are always there. You listen to them even when you don't want to hear it. You may not let them know that and it's alright. Friends are a bit like religion in my thinking. I don't need to tell them how much I love and care about them all the time. Making proclamations about that relationship does nothing to strengthen the relationship. Broadcasting that feeling to the world serves no purpose. You see meme's about that on the Internet. Friends can go for years without speaking and pick up right where they left off. Same with our God is my thinking.
 My Mom has a saying about company, after three days it begins to stink ! I wouldn't be quite that harsh in my judgement. Company can get unpleasant rather quickly no denying that. I'm hesitant to walk away from company because I wouldn't want to miss something. Maybe that is why I don't " unfriend " people on Facebook, except for one exception I haven't anyway. I'll give folks a chance to see my truth. Sounds self righteous doesn't it ? I suppose it is. Thing is, when I believe I'm right it is what I believe. It would be less than honest to say otherwise. If I can't be honest with you we aren't going to be friends very long. It also doesn't mean I won't keep company with you. I'm just never one much for taking my ball and going home. You go, I'll stay and play ball, even if I have to play by myself. Yup, I'm that stubborn.    

Listening

Back in the day, when I was being raised, a child was to be seen and not heard. At the time I thought that just meant adults were talking about stuff they didn't want me to hear. I guess there was some truth in that although it really held more meaning that that. It was a lesson to listen before speaking. That was especially true around your elders who, it was to be assumed where smarter than you ! Being smart back then didn't necessarily involve having college degrees and such. No, it was all about common sense and acting in a responsible fashion.
 It was in that realization that our patents lived. They knew their areas of expertise and spoke on that. They didn't presume to know more about things outside of their province than the ones living in that province. That is to say, to know it all. They did the sensible thing and deferred to those in the know so to speak. Sure they often complained about the decision those folks made but it was their decision to make. In particular this applied to politics. The " common " folk voted for whoever they felt was best qualified for the position. Most of those " common " folk voted according to the general consensus for the geographic area they lived in. We all know that certain areas are predominately one political party or the other. For many that is how the decision was made. I'm a Republican because my Daddy was a Republican or vice versa. The reason was a simple one, they were listening to their parents !
 Now the argument could be made that we used to elect the adults to run the show. I would say that isn't happening as much as it used to. It seems like the kids are in charge, That is the reason you see all this liberal and progressive litigating going on. They are like children saying I should be allowed to eat all the ice cream I want. Everyone knows it is a bad idea but that doesn't matter, it is what I want. Too many " kids " speaking out before listening. The thing about listening is it is the avenue to understanding. I can learn everything in the book, but if I don't understand it does me little good. It is also why many are calling Trump a bully ! Trump doesn't really have that inside knowledge of how government works and so is trying to bully his way through. As children we often tried the tactic of throwing a temper tantrum or crying to get our way. I would say for the majority of my generation that didn't work  ! It was met with, I'll give you something to cry about. But Trump is acting like the adult in the room right now. The kids don't like it one bit, hence the uproar. But Trump is insisting upon fiscal responsibility and  reasonable caution. The kids aren't getting everything they want !
 Yes our government was founded upon Christian values and traditions. John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. I believe that is the truth of it. I also believe we have begun to abandon that moral and religious society. It is that, and that alone, that is leading to our downfall. Morals are a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Call me old fashioned or a prude, call me whatever name you like but I will say this, those standards of behavior have certainly changed and not for the betterment of society in general ! Certain individuals, or groups of individuals may benefit as to their own conscience but not the whole. And belief; belief is being replaced by science. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Yes, John Adams was correct in asserting that man does need a bridle ! Unbridled we are as children acting upon impulse alone. Acting for the moment. That bridle has to be moral behaviors. As far as religion goes, he didn't say any particular religion. What is religion ? Religion is nothing more than a belief in a power greater than yourself. It should be obvious that power should be listened to. I can't speak for others but my greater power isn't saying, do whatever you like !