absolutely

  They say when you get older you begin to repeat yourself. I can testify that it is true. I have begun to repeat myself. In writing these posts I have tried to not repeat myself too often and I think so far I've been successful in that. That isn't to say I haven't repeated anything, I certainly have. I have also revised some of my thoughts and postings. I really can't say if those revisions were for the better or not, that is simply because I may change them yet again. We tend to think of our final word as the answer, but the reality is it isn't. It's just the last thing we said. The final answer is what is repeated.
  Is that why we begin to repeat stuff? Is it because we have settled on the answer?  Right and wrong are subjective, condition based responses aren't they? Or are there absolutes in the universe?  Scientists base their conclusions on absolutes don't they? Mathematical calculations are based on absolutes right? Yet, when it comes to the morality of man, there are no absolutes. Why should that be so? I think the answer to that is simple enough, absolutes are inflexible, fixed and never changing. And those conditions can be most inconvenient. And man, man wants to change and control everything. It is what we do. Everything else on the planet lives with nature, but man tries to alter it to suit his own purpose.We always have and always will. We call it survival. We live in opposition to nature. Our fellow humans are a part of that natural habitat. The way we interact with them has a profound effect on our ability to survive. We are aware of the absolutes, yet we refuse to abide by them. It's as simple as the golden rule isn't it? Do we live by that absolute truth? No, we don't, we modify it as the occasion demands to obtain the result we wish. It is true some make more of a habit of that than others, but we are all guilty to a degree. Still, we all begin to repeat the answers sooner or later. I'm thinking now the reason may be we are trying to convince ourselves! I've said before the hardest person to convince is yourself. What I mean by that is embracing absolute belief. When you absolutely believe you never change your mind. We all tend to change according to the situation at hand. Remaining steadfast is the phrase that describes absolute belief! Unmoving, inflexible and never changing.
 What is confusing in all of this is we admire those that remain steadfast in their belief. We are taught that it is an admirable trait.  In practice however we are told it is admirable only if it is correct. If that belief doesn't agree with our own, they are stubborn. There are two absolutes! Wait, how can that be? I would say that is best described by a quote I read somewhere, " An absolute can only be given in an intuition, while all the rest has to do with analysis. " ( Henri Bergson). I'd say the golden rule was written by intuition. It is an absolute
 I have begun to worry a bit about repeating myself and that is why I'm writing this piece. I do tend to write about ( have a discussion with myself ) about what is on my mind. Now having written this I'm starting to think that maybe repeating yourself isn't a bad thing. Giving the same answer every time has got to be a good thing right? I'm thinking even that may be subjective. If you want to appeal to a broad range of people you would certainly have to have a broad range of answers. If you are satisfied with just a few, one answer, consistently given, is sufficient. Repeating yourself is repeating your belief, not giving the answer. The answer can be different for each of us and that is the crux of the matter. So yes there are two absolutes, or three, or more! When we repeat ourselves we are defining our absolutes. Only problem being, how can I be sure? How can I be absolutely certain? Belief and faith are different circumstance. I can believe and have faith, but are they absolutes? Only if I can convince myself of that. Like Bergson said, absolutes are obtained by intuition, not by analysis. I believe we repeat what is intuitive to our nature. It's what we believe. How we learned it isn't as important as the fact that we learned it. So, it's alright to repeat yourself, in fact you should be. If you're not, you haven't decided upon anything at all. Belief is based on analysis, but faith, faith is intuitive. William Wordsworth said, " faith is a passionate intuition " And faith isn't faith until it is all you are holding onto. I don't know who said that but I agree. 

canonical

 I keep hearing the insistence that America was founded on diversity. Yes, it is true that Americans come from all nations and backgrounds. We hear today that we are a nation of immigrants. Yes, we are. Well, at least we are since the founding of the nation in 1776 when we declared our Independence. You can't immigrate to a country that doesn't exist and there was no country here before us. At the very least no country that was recognized by the rest of the civilized world. There was no place , no authority to apply to for immigrant status. Did we invade this land? No, I believe we just migrated, like man had been migrating since the very beginning. Man has migrated to every corner of the earth, which is difficult because it is round after all, despite what some would have you believe. Then having migrated man settles the " new " land and forms a new society. That is what happened in America. After forming a new nation folks started to immigrate to this " new " land. They even called it the " new " world. They came to do one thing, become Americans. That's correct, that was the goal, to become a citizen of this new world. Beginning in 1908 the term melting pot was applied to this new world, specifically the United States of America. The term was meant to enforce the idea of the different cultures and customs " melting " together to form this new society. Assimilation is the term we use today and some are now saying that it is a bad thing. You have to question why? For me the answer is obvious. People want to keep what they have and just add all the good stuff America offers to that. In other words, they don't want to surrender a thing! Well, in my experience everything comes at a price, nothing in this world is free. Yes diversity is an asset. There can be no denying that. That diversity should be utilized to make the society stronger however, not tear it apart! The goal has to remain the same, Unity.
 All of that gives rise to the question of immigration. Does anyone have a right to immigrate anywhere? They do only as far as their personal feelings are concerned. Governments institute law to serve one purpose, to govern. To govern is to control, it is really as simple as that. We must control immigration if we are to control the society. It isn't a difficult concept to understand. Everything on this earth is finite! Everything has a limit. The number of immigrants allowed into a nation must be controlled. It's obvious and requires no explanation. No nation can allow itself to be invaded and to suggest that we should is just ridiculous. Changing the term used to describe the invaders doesn't change the action! Illegal aliens, migrants, refugees or asylum seekers are all the same thing! The motivation may be different but the action is the same! If they are entering the country illegally that means they are invading. If someone enters your home uninvited aren't they invading your home? If they read your correspondence without your permission aren't they invading your privacy? The reason they are doing so doesn't really matter does it? No, they are invading.
 Look even Facebook has a " terms of use " agreement you must sign. Why is it wrong for a nation to have a " term of use " agreement beginning with, you have to apply for entry. You don't get a " free trial period " in this agreement. That trial period is the period between the issuance of a green card and receiving your citizenship. Immigration is a function of government. It can not be administered with emotion as the deciding factor. It must be decided upon conjectural evidence. Let us not forget our motto, " e purlieus Unum " from many one. Although that phrase was never codified as the official motto of the United States many believe it to be so. As an aside, the official motto of the United States as codified in 1956 is " In God we Trust. " Still, I think from many, one describes the state we wish to acquire as a Nation, one. Certainly we must trust in our God to achieve such a lofty goal. We shouldn't compromise on that goal, nor make exception to it. If you want to be an American, you must apply to join the club! That's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. Immigrate and assimilate are the watchwords. Do those things and you can become a citizen of the greatest country on earth. 

personas and personalities

 Before politics what did we talk about on Facebook? I'm thinking it was mostly pictures of our kids, grandkids and what's for supper. It was a different atmosphere that much is certain. I admit to being one of those that contributed to the foul air. But, there is no going back, as the saying goes, and that is a fact. It's the new norm. Words spoken or written can never be retrieved. It is all out there. Facebook has become a sounding board for the older folks! Yes, Facebook is for old people, at least that is what I am told by my grandkids. My own kids, and believe me they are still kids at 40 something, have there own uses for Facebook. They use it as a social platform for selling stuff, organizing activities  for their kids and an occasional bit of gossip. They are always " checking in " somewhere. That has something to do with their phones, a setting or something I don't know much about. My own phone has started this habit as well. And on the news I hear about privacy concerns with the tracking feature on those phones. Should the court have to subpoena your phone records to view that activity? It's an interesting question. I'm no lawyer but on television they always had to subpoena your phone records to see who you called. I'm thinking the real issue is whether they can search your phone. Seems to me they can, with reasonable cause, and that requires a judge saying so. The question for me is, how do I prove that you had that phone? I mean, just because the phone was there it doesn't mean I was there. Well I'll leave all of that to the lawyers to figure out. I guarantee you there won't be a straight answer to any of it! We don't make firm decision anymore, there is always an exception to the rule. Fact is, if you read the law, and that is probably why they call it that when you are studying law, you are reading all the exceptions! Yeah, the lawyers call them precedents but they are the exceptions and excuses acceptable to the bar. But just what is the bar? Even lawyers debate about what that means. It is generally thought to mean having passed the bar exam to practice law in a certain jurisdiction. Yeah lawyers are like doctors, they are still practicing, not having mastered their prospective professions.

 Well I have wandered off topic as I am apt to do. I was talking about Facebook and how it has changed over the years. The big change started after Trump won the presidency. At least that is my opinion. Oh there was plenty of conversation/discussion concerning politics before that but it took a turn for the worse following the results. I have said since the beginning and it is still true that I didn't vote for Donald Trump. I have also said, repeatedly, that he won! That, to me, is the bottom line like it or not. There are many on Facebook that refuse to accept that result and that is an issue. That one issue alone has done more to pollute Facebook than any other topic. It is the dividing line. I am constantly accused of being a Trumpster! Why, because I agree with some of his policies. Strangely I was never called an Obama supporter when I agreed with some of his policies. But I'll leave that alone, as I really don't care. I support the office of the president, wishing him success. What he does effects the nation! I'm certainly not going to work towards having him fail. I just don't understand that mentality at all. 

 I will say the old Facebook was less mentally challenging. You didn't have to think about much or be well informed. Well, that hasn't changed all that much, there are plenty of folks commenting that are less than informed. I don't get it, a few key strokes and you can gain information on any subject you can dream of. Why wouldn't you do that before making silly remarks that are totally unfounded in any truth? Of course I'm still wondering why so many state the obvious and then act like it is some major revelation. Give this a like if you are against animal abuse or you think cancer sucks! Just who would support either of those? Why those questions? Could it simply be you are assured of the answer you want? Is that what is at the bottom of all this? A certain group of people didn't get the answer they wanted? And now, they are demanding that answer at all costs!

 We have started many sub-groups on Facebook. I started one of my own following disagreement on another. I decided rather than impose my thoughts, writings or presence on anyone else I would just leave that group. I think that is what mature adults do, politely excuse yourself and go off on your own. I can talk about those others on my " page " or in my " group " all I want too. So, nah, nah nah! That's the mature response. The original thought in starting my own little group was to share common stories and renew bonds from the past. That was the intent of the first group as well. Some seemed to get confused about that and wasn't happy with what I had to say. Guess I was just like a neighbor you really don't like and that's fine. I left the neighborhood. I haven't been to the old neighborhood since. I hope they are all getting along. You know Facebook is a reflection of real life in some ways. All the little groups and cliques, just like high school. Some are travelling the high road and some are taking the low. Personas and personalities. The big difference is there is a screen between us. You see only what I allow you to see. What you see isn't always what you get though! Well, nobody's perfect.    

rational emotions

 I was reading some comments concerning the Flag. The Flag code is the guiding document for the display and respecting of the flag. It is an attempt to rationalize emotion. That is how I would describe that. It is a code, like the code of the west, that isn't enforceable by law but enforced rather by mutual agreement. It is the response we would like to see. Those responses include not allowing it to touch the ground or be used as a piece of clothing. The flag is to be treated with honor and respect at all times. With the fourth of July just around the corner the flag is being used as a marketing tool. Nothing new about that, appealing to our patriotism to sell a product or service is an emotional appeal. It is really no different than Christmas, Birthdays or other , what I call " Hallmark holidays " such as Mothers day, Fathers day, etc. Emotions are manipulated to satisfy a need or justify a cause.
 Those thoughts came to mind as I read those comments. The big argument I read was how the items being sold were not made from the Flag. Yes, the items were red, white and blue. Red and white Stripes with a blue background filled with stars. Yes, those items were designed specifically to invoke the image of the American flag, but they aren't the flag. The flag code says the flag is not to be used as an article of clothing and it isn't! That is the rationale, I read. It is also what I see as an attempt to rationalize emotion. As I said in my opening remarks the treatment of the flag is controlled by a code, by emotion only. The use of semantics and logic to alter that code is an emotional response, a justification. I am a true American that's why I buy and proudly display my paper plates that look like the American Flag! Those plates aren't the flag however. It is akin to using your Mothers picture to sell a girly magazine in my opinion. No, it's not my Mother, it just looks like her. See my point there? We can rationalize that the item isn't the Flag, it wasn't made from a flag but it represents the flag? It is alright for a representative to act in a way that is unacceptable? If those items represent the Flag, shouldn't they be entitled to the same respect as the Flag? I would certainly want my representative to be treated with the same respect as myself. Isn't that why we send representatives in the first place, to represent us?
 In my thinking it all comes down to how you view the flag and what it represents. Is the flag solely cloth and thread sewn into a specific pattern. Is that what makes it the flag? Or does the flag act as a representation of something else? Is the flag a symbol of the American ideal? I would say it certainly is and that is the intent of all flags, to represent an ideal. Flags have been carried into battle since time immemorial to represent certain factions and ideals. Gather under the flag boys and fight for the right! Flags have represented good and bad and will continue to do so. The American flag is my flag! It is the flag of my fathers and all they fought to uphold. In my thinking the flag should be afforded every courtesy. I cringe when I see depictions of the flag on all these products. I question the sentiment when those depictions are defended with the logic, they aren't flags. My response is, and always will be, they are representations of the flag.
 Now, all that being said, I hope everyone enjoys their holiday. Buy your " flag " gear and display your American pride. If you feel that is appropriate, that is your opinion and you are entitled to that. That is why we have a code, not a law. You can not codify emotion. It would appear a great many people today are trying to do just that. Emotion is being used to push policy and an agenda. We must remember one thing, emotions are not always rational. In so remembering we need to temper our emotions with reason. What may be emotionally satisfying isn't always the rational response. Also we must guard against compromising our emotions for profit.   

the old way

 Ever hear of white gas? You may have if you had any experience with gasoline before 1975 or so. Why 1975? That was the year unleaded gas was introduced. But, then gasoline with lead added was called " regular " gas and the other obviously unleaded. Neither one of those are white gas though. White gas is gasoline without any additives at all. In more modern times it is Naphtha or some form of camp gas. I knew white gas in its' original form, just distilled petroleum without any additives of any kind. It was used in applications where an additive may have caused harm to the machinery. Lead was added to gasoline to help in dissipating heat but the lead would foul spark plugs in certain situations. But anyway, I was thinking about this white gas this morning and figured many folks have probably never heard of it. As I said, today it is commonly called camp gas but that isn't really gasoline at all. It is just an example of nomenclature changing over time and usage.
 The thought of white gas came to mind when I remembered a small incident taking place at the gas station where I worked. Yes, I still call them gas stations. There was a gas pump inside the garage that dispensed white gas. It was used mostly for cleaning parts and such. Yes, we used gasoline for cleaning small parts, indoors, in an unventilated room. I know, amazing any of us lived through it. Anyway I went to get some white gas on a rag for cleaning something. Now being a bit inexperienced I placed the rag over the end of the nozzle and squeezed the handle. I squeezed a little too hard and that gas just squirted all over the place, including me. Fact is, I was drenched in gasoline! I was told to run home and take a shower. I did! Literally , I ran the distance home, maybe a half a mile or so, all the time that gasoline stringing my skin and eyes. Stopping outside the back door I took off my clothes, except my underwear, and dashed into the house. I ran past Mom, who was washing the dishes and up the stairs. Mom followed, hot on the trail, hollering what are you doing? Imagine her surprise when I streaked through the kitchen in my underwear. Well, I explained what happened and the clothes were thrown in the washer. I did go back to work that day and was the subject of good natured ribbing the rest of the day.
 I never tried to soak a rag with gasoline in that way again. Following that incident I always put a little gas into a container of some sort. It was a learning experience. Looking back it is amazing that we didn't have any more incidents and accidents than we did. This was at a time when acid was still added to batteries as needed. The battery acid was in a container on a shelf above your head, gravity feed of course. I can still remember the batteries sitting in a row on that bench charging and that smell of sulfur in the air. Well, really it is Hydrogen Sulfide gas but I was told that is what hell smells like. I had enough small holes in my pants from splatters to see the results of getting it on you. We didn't wear aprons or goggles! I wonder why? I guess were just weren't as paranoid back in the day having a bit more confidence in our abilities. It's true the incompetent were exposed quite quickly. You didn't get a chance to make a lot of mistakes. The best you could hope for was to get away with it. Ah, the good old days.
 I left for the Navy in 1971 and never worked at a garage after that. All that I had learned there has served me well over the years. The technology has certainly changed. Now I am called upon when there is a question about " antique " automobiles and their engines. Ask the old guy, he might know. Yes, the old guy does know. I'm not sure you could get white gas anymore or battery acid for that matter. There is a lot the old guy knows that is no longer useful information for the everyday mechanic. The old guys used to repair automobiles and their components, today it is more of a replace situation. You don't need to know how or why the component does what it does, just replace it. The computer will tell you what to do. Will the internal combustion engine go the way of the steam engine? Will it one day be a relic of an old technology? Yes, I believe it will.
      

the next deal

 Although it is on my mind I grow weary of writing about the current atmosphere in the country. The morning news is just full of divisive and anger inducing stories. And that is a part of it, they are reporting stories! The news has turned more into an opinion factory than a reporting of events. Propaganda at its' finest goes unrecognized as such. I am not being fooled by any of this. I am also not placing the blame on any one political party, although it can't be denied that it has reached new heights since the election of President Trump. I anxiously await the pendulum swinging the other way. I'm certain that it will. It is very difficult for me to stick my head in the sand and ignore all of this but I'm thinking I will try for a while. It is for self preservation of my sanity! Yes, this stuff is making me crazy!
 The one thing that irritates me the greatest is this attitude that I will show you what a good person I am no matter the cost; to you! That's right, I will show you just how much compassion and unbounded empathy I have even if it destroys the nation! Criminals, thugs, never do wells, leeches and mental defects will be afforded every opportunity and extended every charity. I will support these folks with every ounce of my being and every penny of YOUR money! This whole idea of " you are a human and therefore have a right to do whatever you like " regardless of what the society or indeed a nation deems acceptable is ludicrous. We have rules in society! Government is concerned with law! You don't get to do and act anyway you like, whenever you like and to whomever you like. There are consequences to the choices you make! There are consequences to the choices each of us make!
 I would say I have always been more of an observer than a doer. Take that anyway you like but I feel it is an accurate statement. I have been criticized for such, being told well then do something about it. I understand the sentiment but I also feel someone has to be paying attention. You know a general doesn't fight the war, he directs the battle. I think of myself as a forward observer reporting what I see to those in a position to act. If, at any time I feel like I can actually do something other than create a disturbance I will do that. Activists stir up the crowd and motivate others to act. I'm not much of an activist, I'm more of an advisor. Funny thing about that is advisors seldom receive any credit for their advice. Like a coach on a sports team, if the team wins, it was a team effort, if they lose, fire the coach! That's how it works out.
 I do have to say I don't like what I am seeing these days. The country is falling apart at the seams. No, that isn't correct, it is being ripped apart. A great number of people have been convinced to act contrary to their own best interests. What amazes me is their failure to recognize that. It is really the old I will cut my nose off to spite my face mentality. It is very reminiscent of childhood behaviors I have witnessed in the past and even participated in. Aware of the consequences but unwilling to acknowledge that! It's a frustration. Now I understand exactly what Grandpa was talking about all those years ago. Life isn't fair, you just have to play the hand you are dealt. I have been watching the cards. The cards are being shuffled once again, I'm waiting on the next deal. 

is more enough

 I saw a meme about housing those that call themselves refugees. Apparently the United Stats has erected a tent city for them. The question was if we could do that for them why can't we do it for the homeless veterans? On the surface it seems like a valid question but that isn't the way I see that. My remark was if you did that then the homerless wouldn't be homeless anymore, they would just live there. In so doing we would also have to have a cafeteria, medical facilities and cable television. It was a bit of a snarky response but one I believe is correct. At the least that is the empirical view. It would be really no different than subsidized housing, well except for one big difference. it would not be a subsidy, it would be straight up charity.
 Now you could argue that our Veterans deserve charity. I could argue that every human being is deserving of charity. Is one demographic more deserving than another? When you start classifying such it is a very slippery slope. Are homeless veterans more deserving than refugees? Are we going to say that because a refugee chooses that status,  it is their choice to be homeless? As harsh as that sounds I can understand the logic in that. The question is are our veterans also choosing to be homeless? Or are they being forced into homelessness? Well, nothing is 100%, there are always exceptions to the rule. I did a brief search on the internet concerning voluntary homelessness and actually found very little data about that. It is a " thing " among some young people who identify themselves as " crusty " or " crunchy " or some other terms to describe their choice to be homeless. Apparently a California thing centered mostly in Berkley, go figure right? But anyway, there are those that choose this as a way of life. I had written about such a while back in a story I called Hobo to Homeless. Hobo's were what we called transient workers back in the day. It wasn't a good thing to be a hobo and most were frowned upon by the public in general. There did come a time when they were the stuff of folklore and legend, almost lovable characters. Think, Freddie the Freeloader, a beloved character played by Red Skelton. I do wonder when we transitioned from that mentality to labeling them as homeless and deserving of charity. Just what shift took place? Why do we automatically assume that a person that is homeless has been forced into that position? That certainly wasn't the thinking back then. Could it be that these " homeless " people have discovered that as well? What I mean is that charity is forthcoming merely for the surrendering of your dignity? Yes, I'm talking about the victim mentality. Oh poor me, I'm a veteran or whatever and deserve so much more. An exploitation of our fellow mans' charity? Keep in mind I did say nothing is 100% so I'm not saying all of them are like that. I just question how many make a conscious decision in that regard? As I said there is apparently little actual data in that regard, at least little that I found. I did find that homelessness has been steadily decreasing over the last ten years. That is in direct correlation with subsidized housing and other charitable venues, again, go figure right? If I can get it for free, or very little effort, why struggle right? I'll surrender my dignity for whatever I can get and then complain about a loss of dignity to gain even more. That's how these folks wind up with cell phones, automobiles, housing, food stamps and free cable television! We certainly wouldn't want them to feel any less about themselves! After all, it's not their fault is it? Truth is, we just don't really know do we?
 There is always two sides to every story. How did we reach the point were we automatically assume everyone is a victim? When did we remove personal choice and accountability from that equation? We aren't even supposed to consider that possibility today. If they are a veteran it is assumed they suffer from some traumatic stress disorder or other psychological effects from war! You know it is possible to be a veteran and not ever been engaged in any violent conflict whatsoever. Yes, it's true. Is the veteran that served at home, stationed in the United States less a veteran than one that served overseas? Is a decorated combat veteran more deserving than one that isn't? That is the issue I have with these blanket statements about veterans Understand I am a veteran myself, a twenty year veteran in fact. I take full advantage of every benefit I am afforded as such. I do so without shame or reservation. I earned that. That doesn't entitle me to any special treatment! Being a veteran isn't an excuse, it is a honor and a privilege. Not everyone qualifies for that distinction and I am grateful that I did so.
 To return to the question though, why don't we build a tent city for our homeless veterans? I would say there are plenty of resources for these folks if they choose to avail themselves of them. That they choose not to do so  I can't explain. Is it a choice on their part? Are they capable of making such a choice? Indeed should we judge that at all? Is the offering of assistance enough or should we force them to be " helped? " You will have a home if I have to lock you in one! Is that the mentality? Consider this. If free housing, free medical care and free money were given to you upon demand would you still choose to work? If so why? In my experience people pretty much do whatever they have to do. The majority will choose to do more. There will always be those that settle for whatever the can get with the least amount of effort. Start giving it out for free and that's what you'll end up with, freeloaders. The problem then becomes how to separate the two. Who needs help and who just wants a little more? Is more ever enough?  
     
   

back on track

 I went on a little hiatus. I was disconnected from the news and Facebook for almost six days. I didn't miss it nearly as much as I thought I might. I did notice that folks everywhere seem a bit more on edge. Maybe it is just something I was expecting or looking for given the political climate we are currently living in. I heard mention of them " Democrats " more than once in strangers conversations. I wasn't eavesdropping but couldn't help but overhear. I did spend the majority of my time just visiting though and so wasn't involved in any big discussions about any of that. LOL, I spent more time driving than I did visiting in the big picture but it was worth every minute of it. I really don't want to fly anywhere anymore, just too much of a hassle. Isn't that a shame that we have to have security concerns impede our freedom to move about, like living in Indian territory or something! We have to guard against attack. But, don't get me started on that.
 I admit to a bit of hesitation before writing this posting. I wasn't sure what I wanted to talk about. My posts have been a string of thoughts lately, one connected to the other in some fashion. As I have said in the past I think of my posts more as a conversation with myself than anything else. It was different to not write something first thing in the morning. I think I may have lost my train of thought. That is one thought I had but another says, maybe I don't want to board that train again. I made an effort to not be overly negative in my postings as that can foster dark thoughts and lead to gloom and doom. I don't like gloom and doom. I have to say that is what I heard a lot of the moment I turned on Facebook and the evening News. My Facebook friends expressing what I would call concern, and the evening news doing its' best to be sensational and attract viewers. The hatred and bias toward President Trump seems even greater, if that is possible. Of course the mid term elections are coming up and the news is doing its' best to influence that while they report about others attempting to " influence " the American voters.
 I'll have to give this a bit more thought and determine my next course. I do enjoy writing my thoughts and sharing them. It is therapeutic. I realize there are times when the therapy can do more harm than good however. Still it is important to stay informed and engaged in what is going on around you. I do bear a certain responsibilty to my children and grandchildren. Does there come a time when you just wash your hands on it all? No, I don't think you should do that. There does come a time when your impact is minimal. Still that doesn't mean that impact isn't important. Well, I'll wait until tomorrow morning and see what develops. As I said, I'm not certain I want to board the same train I was on maybe I'll take another direction. Maybe I'll just try to write some stories instead. I've always said I don't write stories, I write my memories and my thoughts. Maybe it's time for stories, fantasy is a great distraction but comes at a price. It's a gamble!
    

come as you are

 I'm leaving this morning for a trip to Florida. I'm not one to go on vacations and such very often, that isn't the way I was raised! Still, it is a blessing to be able to do so. I am going to visit with my sister. All the years that are behind us, all the memories created, are waiting to be shared. That is the currency of siblings, memories. As most of you know I was in the Navy for twenty years and traveled all around. My sister married an Air Force guy, I know, but it was her choice, and spent twenty years traveling the globe with him. All those years and the ones following our respective retirement we haven't gotten together very often. Living life, raising families and distance got in the way. And now, now we both realize we allowed that to happen figuring there is always a tomorrow. Well, yes there is, but it is today that needs to be lived! And today, I'm going to see my sister.
 No longer are we young and full of dreams, now we are filled with what was, and that isn't a bad thing. Being the youngest two in the family we were always called the " little " kids. Where are the little kids, call the little kids to dinner. The little kids are still here and getting together. We have both had some health issues, hers I'm afraid a lot more serious than my own. The nature and severity of her illness I'll leave to her to tell, should she wish to do that. Illness is something to be dealt with on a personal level, it doesn't get any more personal than that. I'll listen should she choose to speak, otherwise I'll sit in respectful silence on that subject. We have much to share with one another. In the end there isn't much one can do other than listen, and hold their hand. But this blog is taking a somber tone and I don't want that. I'm excited to be going to visit with my sister. We can share the old stories once again, and tell the new ones, reveling in the accomplishments of our children and grandchildren. Hard to believe when you think about it. The " little kids " are all grown up, well, almost.
 I don't think I'll be posting any blogs until I return home. Rarely do I miss a day, it will be different for me that much is certain. Perhaps I'll return refreshed or perhaps I'll discover I am done. You really can't know what tomorrow holds. But for today, I'm going to see my sister. It'll take a day or two to get there. The wife and I will meander down the coast stopping as the mood strikes us. There is no big hurry, no rush. Life goes by all too quickly, something you don't learn until later in life. You also learn to leave a lot of baggage behind discovering it isn't necessary at all. Life should be lived come as you are, we are all going home, to family. And there really is no hurry.

look both ways

 When I was growing up there were three classes of people. There were the rich people, the poor people and there was us. That's the way I thought of it anyway. To be rich you only needed to have a bit more than me. I figured I had some friends that were rich, not super rich like millionaires, but rich enough. They were the ones that dressed in the latest fashions and fads. In the sixties they had long hair and bought music by the album, I only bought 45's being a bit poorer than them. Their parents gave them cars to drive and they went on the school trips. Yeah, the rich folks lived a bit differently than I did.
 Now I knew some poor folks too. They lived in houses that were covered with tar paper because they couldn't afford shingles. We called their little part of town, " tar paper city."  Really it was just a single road not far from my own. They were good people, just poor. I never questioned why they were poor just accepted the fact that they were. There was no feeling sorry for them or any great need to help them, I just knew they were poor. Nothing wrong with being poor, other than not having money. That was the attitude I grew up with. Surely that attitude came from my parents. I mean, I couldn't tell you how many times I heard them ask me, do you think money grows on trees? We're not rich you know? That was the usual response when asking for things you didn't really need or they viewed as frivolous, things like name brand sneakers when you could get perfectly fine ones at Brill's store for half the price. We didn't have anything like a Walmart, but we had stores for us that weren't rich.
 Of course there was us. We weren't rich or poor just somewhere in the middle. We slid back and forth on that ground depending upon fortune and misfortune. There were times when things were awful tight, when the fishing was bad or work became scarce. The weather, the economy, and the whims of the wealthy influenced all of that. There were times when we were poor! You could usually tell that by what was for supper. At other times we slid up the scale a bit and that's when we bought a pizza out, or got new clothes. Not being real poor folks we usually had whatever we really needed.  When we had a little extra we would extend some charity to those poor folks. No rich folks ever gave us a thing! Fact is we wouldn't have taken it anyway, it would have been an insult!
 I was thinking about this as I listened to these political candidates wanting to give everything to everybody. Yes, it is a good thing to be charitable. Everyone should have what they need. I don't think that means that they should be given everything though. As far as the poor people go I did ask why they didn't try harder to get money? I mean, from a kids view those folks just sat around, collecting welfare and doing whatever they wanted. I was told, maybe it's because they don't want anything more. At least, not if they have to work for it they don't. Maybe they are just as happy with what they have, as we are with what we have. Ever think of that? I admit I hadn't.
 Is it a lack of ambition or is it contentment? That's the real question here. Does anyone want to be poor? I doubt that, but could be they accept that condition. If no one ever told you different you wouldn't know any better either. Is it wrong to be poor? Apparently not, as we are told we should give the poor everything they need,  it's not their fault. They deserve our pity. All we need to do is give them stuff though, money or whatever, and our burden is lifted. How comfortable are you with charity? Does it bother you to accept that? How willing are you to extend charity? I was told it was shameful to accept charity. That isn't something you want to do. You should just go without. I was also told to extend charity whenever you could afford to do that, when you had a little extra. There are those willing to accept it. The thinking was you did that more to insure your own soul, than to help out your fellow man. Yeah, I know, it's selfish but that is the truth of the matter. It does make you feel better about yourself doesn't it. Does motive matter? Well there is the matter of your heart being in the right place. So, I'll leave that answer up to you. I've been fortunate to never have been poor and willing to accept charity from strangers. I think about being rich one day and able to give to charity in a big way. Would I? Can't say until I'm there, and that is the bottom line in all of this. I have to say not much has changed since I was a kid. There are still three classes of people. Poor people, rich people and me. How one relates to the other has undergone some changes though. The thinking is a bit different. Charity for all! If we are all to be equal that's the way it has to be. But that isn't how charity works. You have givers and receivers. The givers can't be the receivers! You really do have to accept your position. Not saying you have to be content with that, just that you need to accept that. I'm just standing here in the middle of the road looking both directions. I could go either way, at any time.          

planning ahead

 We are half way through the year 2018. Alright this is day 164 so technically not half,  but in my mind it is. June being the sixth month and we are halfway through June, sooo. The official start of summer is six days away. It really is true the older you get the faster times seems to pass by. I wonder if that means I'm slowing down? That does seem to be the more likely event. But why should that be? I've still got a lot going on, sorta. Is it that I am now in control of my time that causes this to happen? Nah, that can't be because if I were in control of time I'd be in reverse right now,  and I ain't getting any younger! I was talking about time just yesterday and pointed out that man just doesn't understand it at all. I'm even more convinced of that as I look at my calendar this morning. Yesterday my grandkids were a freshman and a junior, today they are a sophomore and a senior! How did that happen so quickly?
 I'm beginning to believe that time isn't a linear event. Didn't Einstein theorize that light was the only constant? I'm not much of a physicist or mathematician but that is my understanding. E=MC2. Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light, squared. Time isn't mentioned in that equation. Time is subject to change, not a constant. If time does accelerate and decelerate that would explain a great deal. We know from historical records that people just didn't live as long as we do today. At least that is the record as recorded by modern man. In Biblical times they lived a lot longer! Did time change or did people change? Maybe God made a slight adjustment to time after the flood or whenever. I'm not certain when the people in the Bible stopped living hundreds of years, it was always in the old testament I think. Yeah, so maybe there was an adjustment made. Maybe time isn't linear at all!
 Maybe our perceptions are the realities, and reality nothing more than perception. Now we are talking about philosophy. Anyone can be a philosopher. People do act more upon their perceptions than they do on reality. Lately this is being proven out with the liberals in our country. Not My President! Huh, yes he is, that's a reality not a perception. Whether or not he is doing a good job is a perception. We won't know about that until afterwards, that's another reality. See how that works? Trump has actually been the President for 153 days. Does that seem like a long time? Depends upon your perception doesn't it? Is that why time seems to speed up as we age? Is it because we perceive we have more time behind us than ahead? Time is running out. But it is only time as we perceive it to be. That's where eternal life enters the equation. Believe in that and time never ends. Or, at the very least it slows down a whole lot  and that's how we get to be 982 years old.
 I guess what I'm wondering about is am I over half way? I'll be 65 next month and judging by the data, I have to answer in the affirmative. And in answering with the affirmative I am forced to think of the firmament of heaven. Ever ask just what a firmament is? It's Latin for the sky or expanse. Especially when perceived as a tangible thing. Now do we go straight to the firmament like a bolt of light, all at once, or is it a slow ascension? That is where time enters that equation. As we age are we just picking up speed, preparing for the launch? Is that what we are perceiving with this increase in time? Well, I'm not going to think about that anymore, let's just slow the roll, as the kids say. I will enjoy today for the day. Think I will try to do that every day from now on. Sounds like a plan.      
  

over time

 Thinking about time. I heard on the news this morning the alarmists worrying about Antarctic ice melting. I don't remember the exact figures they were talking about just that they claim the worlds oceans have risen by 3/10 of an inch over the last twenty five years. Just how you would go about measuring that they didn't say. But, the oceans are rising because the ice is melting! Yeah, I expect they would if the ice melts, I'm no scientists but water tends to run downhill and into the oceans. Call it a life observation but that's how it works. This bunch of scientists aren't blaming global warming though, they didn't give a reason it was happening, just that it is happening. Could be global warming though, that sounds reasonable. If the ice caps grow too large wouldn't they then start to get into warmer climates? If that happens they would melt a little bit but like I said I'm no scientist. Anyway, they were predicting the sea level would rise and cover the earth. That made me think of the flood! Yeah, that flood. I'm thinking when that happened the water had to come from somewhere. The Bible says it came from subterranean fountains and of course, the rain. It took forty days. But that is where I began thinking about time. The Bible says Noah was 600 years old when it happened. Are we talking about the same measure of time as we use today? If so, forty days is quite a long time. If we say Noah was sixty, in todays counting and we just assumed a factor of ten making him 600, that would be 400 days of rain and fountains erupting. Yeah, things are gonna be wet. The Bible doesn't really say where all that water went when it receded. There are passages indicating that the topography of the earth was changed either during or after the flood. That seems reasonable enough to me. All that water being blown around, and the Bible says there was a wind, would erode the landscape and create deeper pockets, think of them as large mud puddles, and allow the water to settle down and expose the earth once again. Same amount of Earth, just rearranged a bit. Yeah, that took some time.  And it is time that I am thinking about more than actual events. Time is something that man doesn't understand at all. Time is like space, infinite. Can we understand infinite? I don't think so because we are limited.
  It's really quite simple. Man can only measure what he understands, what we can put inside a box. Man has yet to successfully develop a method to determine what will happen two minutes from now, let alone years. That's why we have fortune tellers and such. It is interesting to measure and speculate, we all do that as children don't we, how tall will I be? Scientists couldn't predict when that volcano in Hawaii would erupt either. If they could it wouldn't have been such a disaster. Surely we have been prepared, we weren't. As far as sea levels rising I don't doubt they are. Is it because the ice is melting? I think that is a factor, certainly. I was in the Navy for twenty years and did learn about ships and a thing called displacement. To put it simply the weight of whatever you put in the water will displace the same amount of weight in water! Yes, the water level rises. Archimedes is credited with figuring that out, I suspect it was known well before his time. Perhaps there wasn't a way to express that principle in writing or figures but that doesn't mean it wasn't known. Man is still trying to explain a whole lot of stuff today that we know about, just can't explain it, like global warming and climate change. Yes, we feel the globe is warming up, yes we know climate change is real, what we don't know is what causes that change! Hey, we really don't know how the whole deal was created in the first place! That, for now, is a matter of faith. Was the earth just a round smooth globe in the beginning? Or was the earth all spiky with water in the low spots. Did the great flood smooth things out some? Is that how the land appeared? We don't know. The Bible tells us God created the Earth. I'll go with that and credit God with the climate changes and rising and falling waters. I figure God can control all of that regardless of what man does. Of course I did learn from reading the Bible it is best to please that God. There was a time when we didn't and guess what happened? The water is rising, we better think about that! Time waits for no man. Was time faster back then or are we just impatient? It does seem like man is more demanding these days. We want it now! I say we better be careful, we are libel to get it. What's that saying? Be careful what you ask for.
 Now if the ice caps melt because of global warming the sea level rises. Eventually all the land is covered, flooded out. All that water will certainly cool things down. I mean, even if it is hot enough to cause evaporation, condensation will result, what we call rain. Then the rain creates storms the wind starts blowing and all that water starts reshaping the surface of the earth. Over time, land appears. Hey, that sounds familiar. Well, I'll leave it to all those scientists to measure time and solve the mysteries of the universe. One thing I believe is, I've got time, I don't know it all right now, but I'm learning. I'll learn, over time. 

buying an education?

 I tend to believe you really do get what you pay for. At least that is the best case scenario, sometimes you do get disappointed, Caveat Emptor being the guide. There is a candidate running for governor here in Maryland promising free community college for everyone. Sounds good doesn't it? But it leaves me with a lot of questions? The biggest being, who exactly is going to pay for this, already know that answer really but trying not to think about that. Beyond that however I wonder about the requirements for entry. Now I haven't attended college myself and don't know much about the admission process. I was always under the impression you had to qualify for admittance, not just pay for it. Isn't that why I was told to take the harder courses in high school, to prepare yourself for the academic challenges of college? Didn't you have to have minimum scores on standardized tests? I really don't know how that works, but maybe that only applies to the best schools. This candidate is only talking about community college where I know you can just pay the price of admission and take whatever course you like. As I understand it community college can be a pathway to a four year degree saving you lots of money. On the other hand I also hear that those community college degrees aren't held in very high esteem by some folks. Is that a case of you get what you pay for? If so, what if it is free?
 Something else I believe is you don't have to go to college to be brilliant. In this modern world full of information readily available to anyone, that is doubly true. I can study any subject I choose from the comfort of home. Other than paying for internet access the cost would be very low or non existent. Still society requires that piece of paper as proof. In the old days we used to call it the old sheepskin. I do believe it was far more difficult to obtain. The question is, was that difficulty linked to academic achievement or the ability to pay? The current belief surely has to be the ability to pay. Apparently there were a lot of brilliant poor people in the past yearning for an education. If that education were free, everyone could go, everyone gets the degree and everyone makes the big bucks! Isn't that the driving force behind obtaining that degree in the first place? Or is it the thirst for knowledge? I was always given the impression it was " to make a better living for yourself and your family. " I was never told it was for personal enlightenment. Ask a guidance counselor, if that is what they call them these days. I do hear an awful lot about a career path. Seems I was told to just hit the bricks!
 Whatever, I'm just wondering about the value of something you get for free. Are you going to get your moneys' worth? That begs the question, as far as these community colleges go what are they selling? Is it an entrance to a " better " degree? Are they really degrees for the " poor " folk, kinda like having a Chevy instead of a Rolls Royce? You have to go to an Ivy league school to get the Rolls. Isn't that the perception. Are those degrees being issued by community colleges just a cheap knock off? If you start giving them away for free that is certainly promoting that perception.
 Well I just don't know. None of this is meant to disparage anyone that goes to community college or obtained a degree in that fashion. In fact I congratulate them for having achieved that. It was an expenditure on their part. They did have to work for it. I'm not insinuating in any way that their academic achievement is any less than any other one achieved in the same field of study. I do have issue with some of the " fields of study " that are being awarded degrees these days. Those degrees  being issued by two year programs that basically have no real value in the market. A degree in Philosophy or Communication Arts won't land you a high paying job, you can work at McDonalds, think about life and talk to the customers.
 It is those degree programs I balk about funding. If you are going to take my money,  buy stuff for others with that money, I only want you to buy useful stuff. Just like I don't want you talking my money, giving to others to go grocery shopping and allowing them to buy lobster! As I said I haven't been to any college but I know about fiscal responsibilty! If everyone gets to go to college for free, for at least the first two years, how many will be signing up? How long before the schools are full and the complaining begins about over crowding? How long before someone is suing the state because they are being denied their " free " stuff? How long before I will be required to provide those " students " with free breakfast and lunch? What about laptops and I-pads. Then after having completed their degree program, how long before they sue because they should be making a lot more money, after all they have a degree! Where does that end? Can you restrict the " free " college to only those programs that are approved by the state? Yeah, good luck with that.   

all he's got

 I woke to see Trump at his press conference. I admit it is a bit early to listen and comprehend what he was saying. The reporters seemed to be a bit more respectful this time, maybe because it was an international delegation. As usual Trump extoled his accomplishment with meeting Chairman Kim and signing an agreement. Only time will tell if this agreement is truly historic or another worthless pile of paper. I certainly hope it proves historic for the sake of everyone. Regardless of how you feel about Trump anything that can be done to get rid of more nuclear weapons has got to be a good thing. I do wonder why quite a number of those reporters asked the same question? Do they expect a different answer? Seems to me they should have prepared a number of questions and went down their list.
 I am annoyed by the reporters who, after the conference, said Trump gave Chairman Kim legitimacy. Well, the thing is he does control a country with nuclear capabilities. Regardless if you believe his country is just poor and not an international power they can still do a great deal of damage. For me, and I'm no diplomat, I do understand one thing. If you want to negotiate with someone you do have to treat them as an equal. I believe Kim knows that as well and despite all the name calling and other stuff that preceded this meeting understands his position in the world. Yes, I believe the bottom line for that guy is to stay in power. That is really what he wants. He will do whatever it takes to remain in power, even if he does have to make concessions. If he can manage to look powerful in front of his people as well as looking reasonable and rational, so much the better. I heard he offered some crumbs in that regard concerning civil rights. He has agreed to return some dead bodies! Does that really have an impact of his power? No, I think he can do that, as a sign of good will, and it doesn't harm his position. He still has thousands of political prisoners that were mentioned, but not discussed in detail. It is those that he feels can do the harm, not bodies.
 His big impediment is money. He needs more money to satisfy his subjects. It is my thinking that is what is behind all of this in the first place. He had hoped for more financial support from his friends and allies but that wasn't forthcoming. Then the international community began to sanction him. As usual the United States had the most money to offer and the most to withhold. He tried to bully Trump and the rest of the world by launching rockets. He threatened and acted like a deranged fool. It was all part of the show and the show failed! Now his country is in serious straights and his regime is in serious danger as well. He spent all the money. Time to try a new tactic to stay in power. As far as I'm concerned I don't care what his motives are as long as the nukes are reduced or eliminated. Look the bottom line is this, Kim wants to stay in power and needs money to do that. Satisfy that need and he will chill! No one wants to derail the gravy train, including Kim Jun Un. Yes, he bears watching, closely. Will he surrender his nuclear capabilities? I think he will if he is certain that he will remain in power. He knows he couldn't win a nuclear exchange. Yeah, he will threaten but he's learning he can't afford to keep doing that, and I mean afford in a monetary sense. His people aren't going to stand for it forever. Money will win out in the end, it always does. What started the American revolution? Money plain and simple. Taxation without representation is tyranny! Kim Jun Un knows all about that I'm certain. When the people are hungry and broke they tend to get mad. They start beating those plowshares into swords and the end result ain't good! Takes money to stay in power, a lot of money. He can't take it by force and knows it, time to sell something, anything you have. What's he got? Nuclear weapons? That's about it.  

Bona Fide

 I was watching the price is right the other day and they got to the part where they ask an audience member for an item. On this day they said I'll give you a hundred dollars if you have a checkbook. The lady didn't have one. That got me to thinking, how many people carry a checkbook anymore? I mean, you are going to a game show, out and about the town and all, surely that is a big deal. But, you don't need a checkbook, you have your debit card. I wonder if anyone had a pen and a piece of paper, you know, in case you needed to leave someone a note. My guess is that few would be prepared for that. I'm also thinking that everyone had a phone with them! Now that is something they could have asked for not that many years ago that few would have had. Times sure have changed. The show hasn't changed all that much though. My wife's Uncle George was on that show when Bill Cullen was the host. That was a while back but he won a car, a mink coat, patio furniture and some other stuff. Pretty much the stuff they are giving away now except for the animal skins, wouldn't want to offend anyone. Well, when Uncle George was on the show when they had cigarette advertising too.
 Yes I have a checking account and I have checks. I rarely, if ever, write a check. My wife doesn't carry a checkbook in her purse either. To be honest I can't remember the last time I needed to write a check. I was always told your signature was on file at the bank where you opened your account. Sign your check carefully, the way you did initially. In that way a forgery could be detected. Now we sign those little screens and you couldn't tell what it says! The reality is that is just a formality as you can scribble anything on there and it will accept your " signature. " Honestly I don't understand why we even bother at all. There is talk of retina verification or maybe fingerprint confirmation that it is you, the cardholder, and that sounds like a good idea. We just need the cost to align with the technology. There is even talk of implanting a device in your finger that would serve that purpose. I shudder at the thought! Way too sci-fi for me. I will never be chipped! There aren't many times I would make so bold a statement. But when it comes to that, I refuse. No! Just no. Will the government make such a requirement for all new born children? They suggest you get a social security number for your child at birth  but it is not a requirement. I'm thinking the politicians are too wise to propose such a thing, I don't believe it would be met with favor, although from what I read more choose to get the number than refuse. The primary reason being a financial one. There are tax considerations and such.
 Yes as time goes on we do become more and more concerned with identifying just who we are. In the old days they would just ask for your " bona fides. " Bona Fides is a Latin term for honesty and sincerity of your intentions. Was a day when they took your word for that. Then the time came when we needed to have some sort of physical proof, documents signed and verified by someone most people would accept as genuine. Today, in a lot of cases it is only our PIN number that is our Bona Fides. Well, either that or some national data bases like the credit bureaus. There are three major ones that everyone accepts. Failing that, you can go to the " dark web " and acquire an acceptable identity. I hear you can purchase a PIN there as well. That Personal Identity Number can be changed frequently and it is recommended that you do so. Hmm, you can't change your social security number. That number is your Bona Fide. When asked to provide it what method is used to verify that number is assigned to you? It isn't, that number is your Bona Fide, meaning it is your Honesty and Sincerity. In short, the other person has to take your word for it! Sure it is subject to verification later on but that verification itself could prove false. That happens more often than any of us like to think.
 Thousands of years of progress. We are still trying to legislate, or at the very least, regulate basic human actions. The most important one of all, honesty, being on the top of the list. You could call it trust. Can I trust you? Trust is involved whenever their is risk involved, namely personal risk. I don't want to be injured. Just how are we going to keep folks honest? On the price is right you are asked to produce a specific item, that is the proof. In life you are asked to do what? Self regulate, impose that restriction on yourself, maintain integrity, honesty and sincerity in your intentions. A mans' word is his bond. The sad part is, it isn't enough! You have to have documentation. Strangely there is a big push today that says lack of documentation is reason for charity and compassion. We are supposed to just " take their word for it. "  History does repeat itself, even after thousands of years.    

discerning

 Few of us walk alone. For the faithful they never really walk alone, we hear that all the time, but that isn't what I have in mind this morning. I'm thinking about the choices we make every day. Those choices are influenced to varying degrees by those around us. From our closest confidants to mere acquaintances they do exert a force in our lives. That is what I have in mind when I say few of us walk alone. How many can claim total independence? Would that even be a good thing? I have serious questions about that. We all need guidance, advice and something to temper our actions by. Remember when you were a child and Mom told you about hanging out with the bad kids? She was right about that, others can lead you into trouble. Discerning the good from the bad is a measure of maturity. Some will tell you that is judging others and say that is a bad thing. Every judgement isn't a condemnation! Many people are getting confused about that.
 The practice of discernment may begin with hunches and plain observation. Over time that sense will develop like all others. The things that get in our way are ego and prejudice. When we learn to set those aside we develop discernment. It requires honesty and the acceptance of truth. Honesty with yourself and accepting the truth even when it isn't what we want to hear. Discernment is a personal action. It is the determination of what is right and wrong as measured against your moral sensibilities. That is the judgement that takes place. If you expect everyone else to have the same moral code as yourself, everyone will fall short! You will fall short as well! It is a reciprocity. Even among those that claim a common morality, take Christians as an example, that code is subject to revision based on any number of things. Which is right, which is wrong? Discerning the truth is a personal thing. When I share that discernment with you I am not judging you, I am judging the truth against my own value system. The judgement is not against you! Still, most people receive it in that fashion. Why? The short answer is because of ego. No one wants to be told they are wrong. I understand that.
  There are times when I feel like I'm walking alone. I think we all have that feeling occasionally. When I'm walking alone I am questioning. I'm attempting to read the " signs." What is it that troubles me? Truth is it isn't always because I am troubled, sometimes I'm just enjoying my own company. No one understands me like me. That's my ego talking and sometimes I listen. Nothing wrong with that. I do have to guard against believing everything he says though. You see, I told you few of us walk alone. I have to remind myself of that or I could get lost. Maybe that is what happens to those that commit suicide? That has been in the news lately and a subject I don't understand at all. Hmm, a random thought that made its' way into this conversation. Is that what the signs are telling me? Is the message that I am never really alone? Yes I think that may be it. Of course the question is, just who am I walking with today? I should consider my choice wisely, exercising discernment in that decision. Am I walking in the company of Angels or something else? Do I get to decide? I do, by exercising discernment! 

accepting expectations

 " All religions must be tolerated for every man must get to heaven in his own way. " That statement is attributed to Epictetus a Greek Stoic philosopher. I would say to him, all religions must be tolerated, but not all behaviors. If your religious behavior causes harm to others that shouldn't be tolerated. Religion concerns the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. A supreme being may or may not be involved in all of that. So yes Epictetus, all religions must be tolerated, even when you don't agree with the premise of that religion. But man, man is generally concerned with the actions of their fellow man, philosophy is left for the fireside and a sip of wine. Our actions are often not directed on getting into heaven, but religion is used as the excuse for those actions. It is true the path to heaven, whatever you conceive that to be, is different for every one of us.
 I think of that path as walking through the city. Everything you could want or need can be found in the city. The city is also associated with sin and temptation. Cities are full of distractions. As you walk along you can decide to window shop, go inside and buy, or even set up shop for yourself. It is those choices that lie between us and heaven. It is dangerous to walk alone, but following the crowd can be equally as damming. We must choose our path carefully. As for me I'm still on that journey, not having set up shop, selling any particular product. I have been window shopping for years now,  occasionally making a purchase. I've done this for so long I'm feeling qualified to be a tour guide! Yes, I know the city all too well, with it's dark alleys and misdirection. Maybe that stems from my youth when I grew up in the country. When going to the city I was keenly aware of my surroundings as I expect a city person would be in the forest. Is it fear or reasonable caution? I prefer to think of it as prudence.
 What has this to do with the path the heaven? Epictetus said every man must get to heaven in his own way. That means each of us are individuals and have different requirements. You can't walk the same path as I, or I yours. We have to decide what is more important, the journey or the destination? The journey concerns the immediate, the destination with the result. Choice and consequence. My advice is try not to get distracted by the journey. Remember the destination. We are only here for a short time, but we think of the next stop as forever. Can we really know that? Death certainly appears permanent. No one has ever returned from that state to inform us otherwise. So, that leaves us with the journey, how we get there. Each of us have to get there in our own way. We do have to be concerned with our actions as that is what others will judge us by. Philosophy is all well and good but it doesn't get anything accomplished. Talking about it ain't doing it. All faith must be recognized, all religions tolerated, but not all behaviors!
 The purpose of religion is to temper our behavior. It is intended to create harmony among men. If we all believed the same thing there would be no argument. Problem is, we don't. Yes there are three major religions in the world today. At their essence they all teach the same lessons. The basic belief is the same. It is only in the actions taken that we disagree. Those actions are decided by man, not by God or some other force. That is the free will given to man or inherit in human nature if you prefer that line of thinking. So remember when on this journey to shop wisely. Do not be distracted by the journey, remember the destination. Help your fellow travelers to the best of your abilities. Yes you should point out the bad " places " and the " bad " choices. " You should be a guide. What point is there in traveling if you don't share the journey? Behaviors are learned, teach them. Remember when we all got along? We all believed just about the same thing. Behaviors were taught and lessons learned. We accepted what was expected. Get back to that and we will find peace once more.  

That's the truth

 You know what I'm getting tired of hearing? I'm getting tired of hearing that I should allow, condone and in fact endorse unchristian acts and deeds because I'm a Christian! I shouldn't speak out against these acts or even say that I believe they are wrong because well, that's unchristian! Using that logic a Christian should do absolutely nothing! Well, forgiving isn't condoning, tolerance isn't acceptance and I wasn't instructed by my God to shut up, no, I was instructed to spread the word. That is what I was told! I was talking about that the other day and the example I used was the woman accused of adultery. You remember that Bible story don't you? She was brought before Jesus and the Pharisees asked Jesus to judge her. He said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The bottom line to me was when he said to her, " go and sin no more! " He didn't tell her it's alright, he told her, don't do it again! She was forgiven but not encouraged to keep on doing it. Tolerance was practiced but Jesus certainly didn't think that behavior was acceptable! That's my point.
 It's the same logic I hear from those that say I fought for my country so you can disrespect it! Some seem to think that is what I fought for! I didn't! It is true that I, and many others defended the Constitution of the United States and all that it represents. No where in my constitution does it give you a right to disrespect that! Yes, you are free to speak, free to assemble, and free to pursue your dreams but all that comes at a cost. If you don't want to fight, or are unwilling to fight, or are just plain afraid to fight, you are still entitled to those rights. You are not entitled to disrespect those same rights or the ones that fought for them! No, your payment for that is in respecting the rights of others. Seems little enough to ask. A few moments of your time to stand respectfully in silence. Even in time of war, on the battlefield, we respect the dead. We don't defile the bodies of our enemies! We respect them. We don't protest the war by disrespecting the warriors!
 Well that's my little rant for this morning. I'm not sure what prompted that exactly, it wasn't a single incident. I'm thinking it is a cumulative effect from all this liberal logic nonsense I read on Facebook. What those liberal folks need to listen to and understand is an Aaron Tippin song, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. The logic there can't be denied. The proof is obvious because those liberals sure do fall for anything! Then they believe they are standing for something! They are standing for change! Christianity hasn't been around for over two thousand years because it was changed! The Constitution hasn't remained in effect for 229 years because we changed it! Those are the things we have to stand for!
 So, let the excuse making begin. Write or say all you want about the constitutional amendments. Tell me how the Pope has changed the churches' position on a number of things over the centuries. I am well aware of history. Man has changed, revised, rewritten, reinvented and reinterpreted everything depending upon the culture in which you were raised. Thing is every society forms a culture. If you change the culture, you change the society. I was born and raised in the American culture! I will stand for that! I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free, are the words in a Lee Greenwood song. With those words he is acknowledging an obligation. At least I know I'm free does imply that obligation. That obligation to defend the nation. Freedom isn't defined by the ability to disrespect others in that society, in that nation. Freedom is defined by the obligation to defend that nation, that ideal. If I don't have anything else, I have freedom! I am obligated to pay for that freedom in some fashion by personal sacrifice. If it isn't anything more than standing in silence that is what I will do! And yes, for me, I will tell you what I believe to be right and wrong. I won't hurt you in a physical sense, I won't deprive you of your freedom but I'll tell you that you are wrong! I won't associate with you, promote or condone your actions either! To those that say it is unchristian to not allow, endorse, or otherwise speak against sinful actions I can only say you are like Peter, he denied Christ three times. Every time you profess that you are denying God! I'm not saying you should harm others in any way, I'm saying you should speak the truth! If your truth isn't universal, it isn't the truth! Far too many don't understand that simple statement either.  

Promises offered

 I have heard from the experts that you must grant yourself permission if you want to be happy in life. That is the phycological interpretation of human behaviors. These experts that attended years of schooling, writing a dissertation to obtain that PhD and that is what they say. Well all I know is if you do what you want you will get immediate satisfaction but the long term results may not be all that great. I'd add to those experts advice by saying, before you grant yourself permission, consider those around you. It does seem like simple logic to me. Personal happiness isn't a personal thing! Some folks seemed to be confused by that. This is becoming especially true in todays world. The greatest joy really does come from the happiness of others. At least I would say, lasting happiness is that way. Talk to a Grandparent if you don't understand that.
 Our time here is limited, a simple fact. I don't believe we are here just to entertain ourselves but to make a contribution. It's true that not all of us will make a positive contribution. Why some folks make positive contributions and others negative I'll leave to another philosopher. My thinking is it is based on the choices you make. Make good choices and you get good results. There are times when that choice may deprive you of something you want, it's still a good choice. Don't go granting yourself permission to make mistakes. Isn't that what religious instruction is all about. Living a moral and ethical life does require some sacrifice on your part. In the Christian tradition Jesus died for our sins ( shortcomings ) as a means of atonement. Deprived of life, the ultimate sacrifice. The reward is eternal life, really eternal happiness right? That is what is promised in heaven. No more sacrifice, no more pain, no more sorrow. How does that happen? By choice, your choice.
 Lasting happiness is the belief in what will be. I'm happy with the knowledge that tomorrow will be a better day. My children will prosper and in turn their children. The world will go on, generation following generation. Lasting happiness does not come from what I have today, lasting happiness is a promise. It makes little difference where the promise comes from, religious belief or something else, only that the promise is offered. Happiness arrives when we accept that promise not for ourselves, but for others. Personal happiness is subject to change. A promise made is not! Believing that the promise will be fulfilled is, happiness.        

second hand history

 Seventy four years ago today the Normandy invasion took place. Nine years, one month and 15 days later I was born. I grew up hearing about that fateful day and the lives lost on that beach. I can't say with certainty I ever met anyone that had participated in that invasion but certainly knew a lot of WW2 veterans, my father among them. You could say the memory was fresh because of that. Today the youngest of those men would be 91, assuming they were 17 at the time. There is no accurate figure of how many still live today. It won't be much longer and the entire generation will pass into history. It will be up to us to remember them and the sacrifices they made. The history has been well documented and analyzed. The conclusion is, they are the greatest generation! I would have to concur with that.

 I would say that today, Normandy is remembered as history. Yes, I know that yesterday is history but I'm thinking about real history, history as we perceive it to be. History is something that happened a long time ago, to other people. Isn't that the way we think of it? The things we did in high school or grade school are not historic. History is something that was important or noteworthy to the general public, or the world. The battles of WW2 are all history now. We have read the stories, seen the movies, and even film clips of the actual battles. The greatest atrocity of that war, the Holocaust, faces doubters now! There are those that wish to deny that it ever took place. There are those that wish history lost! We can't allow that to happen. 

 That has been the case throughout history however. Battles are fought, victories won and the world rejoices. There are winners and losers, the future is formed. The survivors tell the stories of valor and heroism. The next generation follows and the pattern is repeated. Past heroes fade in our memories, replaced by the new. I can name many heroes of WW2. The names of the generals are familiar, both good and bad. But those of WW1, not so much. In February of 2011 the last American survivor of that war passed away at the age of 110. With him, WW1 passed into the realm of history as I see it, no one left alive having witnessed that war firsthand. From that day forward the history of that conflict was secondhand. True, it was only a very small part of that war, as Corporeal Buckles was an ambulance driver during the great war, the war to end all wars , as it was known. Memories are always in the first person, everything else are stories. And stories, stories are subject to revision. 

 Seventy four years ago thousands of men stormed the beaches at Normandy, following the orders of their superiors. They went ashore, fighting for their lives. Where their heads filled with thoughts of valor? Did they storm that beach in the quest to free Europe from the grips of the Nazi's? No, from the first hand accounts I heard of those entering the fray, they were just doing their duty. Some joined up and others answered the call. As I said, I can't say I ever spoke with a veteran of the Normandy invasion but when fighting for your life does the battle location matter? 

 My generation carries the accounts of Vietnam. I would say that is the major portion of history we are accountable for. There were other conflicts and events certainly worth remembering, think 9/11, but I'm speaking of war. The first hand history we tell of Vietnam is not glorious or inspiring in any way. That isn't the memory of that war. The reason for that was there was no victory, no triumphant homecoming. I would say the first taste of defeat Americans have known, as a whole. To those that fought the battles, that taste is bitter indeed. Will that change with the telling of the stories as secondhand history? I do believe it will become tempered over time. The bitterness, no matter how well earned, will mellow with age. When our children and children's children tell our story it will be with pride. History told in stories is often different than history as it took place. 

 Normandy, a name that lives in history for one event. It resides alongside others, Bunker Hill, Pearl Harbor and Midway. The name was etched in history for the loss of life. Sadly it is a name that is fading in the collective memory of man. Only those with an interest in history and those tales of yore, remember. That day is getting closer. And I would lament like some many before me, never forget. The promise is made, we will never forget! I'll do what I can to keep that memory alive even though it is certainly second hand history to me. History is created every second, it is only when it becomes second hand that the value is realized. Such is the nature of man.   

the grass is growing

 Six in the morning and I feel like I'm running late. Is this what getting old is supposed to feel like? Being retired I thought you got to take your time, slow down, enjoy life, that whole scenario. Not me though, I feel like I have to get going. Funny thing is, I'm not even certain why the hurry. Cutting the grass is on today's to do list, a chore I'm not in a hurry to do. Still I am aware that the grass isn't waiting on me, it keeps on growin'. Time and grass wait for no man! Well, I'll get to it today for sure along with setting out the trash for tomorrow morning. The issues of the elderly. Worry about Drs. appts, having enough toilet paper in the house and remembering to take your medications. And now, the whole time I'm attempting to compose this blog I feel pressured for time. Not sure why that is, I don't have a deadline for publication. This is causing stress! LOL,  isn't that silly. 

 I don't have much in the way of pressing issues on my mind. Jack the baker won his case in the supreme court. Good for him and a step in the direction of normalcy as far as I'm concerned. That it needed to go to the supreme court at all says a lot about the state of America. Do we really require legislation to say an artist can't be forced to create art? That is the heart of the matter and what was litigated. All the rest of it was just fluff and stuff! How can anyone else know the beliefs of another? I really can't judge your sincerity, can I? When you do something to expose your hypocrisy I may be justified in pointing that out. Jack hasn't baked any cakes for any Gay marriages so you have to believe him. Enough of that, case closed as far as I'm concerned. 

 I have heard that some NFL players are saying they won't play if they can't kneel. Well that's their choice I suppose. I really couldn't care less. They are athletes paid to entertain me and make money for the team owners. I can survive without their entertainment. I can be just as amused by a video, movie, or reading a good book. There are many options for entertainment other than those guys. Hey, NFL guys, you aren't that darn important, get over yourself. Play by the rules or don't play at all! That is the logo I would post in the locker room! I chuckle because I remember when those actors said they were going to boycott, they would leave the country. Ha, haven't seen anyone even pack a bag! The reason is the same, they are just a source of entertainment. 

 I feel more relaxed now having written something. Somehow I feel like an obligation has been fulfilled. I hope I have entertained someone. Thing is, I'll keep writing because I'm entertaining myself. I think if I threatened to boycott it would mean as much to others as those football players means to me. I do think you need to feel an obligation to yourself before you can feel an obligation to others. As Grandma would say to me," God helps those who help themselves." It means to have self-initiative. Get'er done is another way of saying that. Neither of those phrases are in the Bible. I feel like I have caught up just a bit now and so it's time to move on to the next thing. That grass is growing!     

  

Fortitude

 As I often say, there is little you can say that hasn't been said before. I believe that is absolutely true. The trick is to say something in a way others haven't heard it before. That, I think, is the function of a writer. When you can present an idea in that manner it does awaken others. I don't believe you have taught them anything new, just validated their own thoughts. I know that happens to me. It makes no difference if it is a famous quote, or something muttered by a fool. That's because I too have good thoughts and foolish thoughts. Just because I wrote it down that doesn't mean it can't be changed. It is something I am aware of however. Strange how it seems alright to change your mind,  but not to change what was written. I think that may be because others have proof positive, see that's what you wrote, right here! When you just change your mind, not necessarily denying that you said something different at an earlier time, that seems acceptable, virtuous even. Change the written statement and that is somehow a more severe thing. Maybe that is why all these " tweets " get so many people in trouble these days. Also the reason for the demand, put that in writing!
 Yesterday I posted this phrase, " Words are only as powerful as we allow them to be. " I wrote that in response to the latest spate of name calling and derogatory language being spewed forth by celebrities and others. The whole concept of " racial slurs " and " hate " speech being so injurious to others. Whereas I understand the intent is to provide some means of redress for the injured party by acknowledging that injury I can't help but be reminded. When I was young the old adage was, " sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. " What is that saying? Words are only as powerful as you allow them to be " is my interpretation. Something that has been said before said it in a different way. As to whether you hear it differently I can't say. The action I am advising you to take concerns personal fortitude. I shouldn't allow your words to be injurious to me, I should steal myself against that, taking refuge in my own thoughts and beliefs. That isn't to say I shouldn't seek legal redress if others believe your words and that in turn causes some injury to me in a financial way. There are provisions in the law for that. There are also means for damages to my your reputation. My statement is not concerned with either of those however. I am saying that words are only as powerful as you allow them to be when it comes to hurting you in a personal way. Should I be called a white boy, I'm not offended by that, I am a white boy. Yes, depending upon who is saying that,  the implication can be vastly different. I understand that completely but I have to allow that implication to effect me! Name calling! A tactic as old as mans' ability to speak. I can make you mad, upset you in some fashion. I can manipulate your emotions and alter your actions! I can control you if you allow that to happen. That is what I am talking about. When it hurts our feelings we seek justice! If that same person gives you praise you accept that praise as the gospel truth! Done subtly enough I can manipulate your feelings and actions! Again those words are as powerful as you allow them to be. That's human nature. Most of us don't think about it that way though. There is no penalty for excessive praise. We all say how transparent that may be, and how fake it is, but we all still like it! That too is human nature. How powerful you allow those words to be will determine all of that. For some those words can certainly pump them up, get a swelled head as we say.
 Well anyway, that was my thought about all of that. I don't know what more to say about it. I was taught to not call people names and expected consequences from that if I did. It wasn't legal challenges that caused my concern, if you catch my drift. But today we are trying to be more civilized, isn't that the goal? Like I wrote yesterday I was told to keep a civil tongue in my head as well! Now we have removed the filter of civility and demand people speak in a civil fashion. We impose civil penalties if they don't! Seems to me the old way worked better, at least it was more effective at limiting that form of speech. You had best be prepared to defend those words! True, it wasn't very civilized, but more people acted like they were. Do the ends justify the means? One did have to develop their inner fortitude. It is independence, not dependence.   

Civilized

 We are striving to become a civilized society, we even make claim to being such, but the struggle continues. In years past, throughout history, physical confrontation has always been the final consequence. The reality is, it still is. Evidence to support that is everywhere. Man has always fought wars to end wars! Then we fight another. But suppose we did manage to end physical aggression, what would replace that as the ultimate consequence? Would it be the legislation of man? Whatever " laws " mankind as a whole adopts? A wonderful thought but one that will never be achieved. The reason for that is a simple one. Provide a legal definition for a single word that is universally accepted and understood. Right now in America there is a debate over the legal meaning of " man " in the law. It's true, their is a proposed change to the Constitution stating that all men ( and women ) are created equal. We need to include the word woman to be clear that is what we are talking about. But even before we can agree on that their is debate about other " choices. " What if I don't want to identify as either one of those? Will I still receive equal protection, am I not still created equal? You see the problem there don't you? How to legally define a single word! Is mankind a man, a woman, or some combination of both? And it is for that reason I say we will never reach a consensus as to the legal meaning of words. So, that just will not work as the final consequence. The law is subject to change. Indeed, do we not all agree that the law should be changed according to current thinking and sensibilities? Isn't that the argument that is always used? The law is outdated! We need to make progress, to be progressive! That always involves redefining things, mostly what we consider morally and ethically to be acceptable to the society.
 All of that is in regard to civil matters. That is the consequence the law is concerned with. To avoid physical confrontation is to be civilized. Then we are told to keep a civil tongue in our head! It should come as no surprise when there are civil penalties for acting in an uncivilized manner. Consider recent events in the news as an example. An entire television series was cancelled. True that wasn't done by a legal authority, it wasn't a civil matter, but a business decision by a corporation. There are however provisions in the law for libel and slander. In recent years hate speech has been added to a list of civil crimes punishable by civil authority. And just what is a civil crime? It is defined as a crime between two or more people or a business.  Criminal offenses, on the other hand, are a violation of local ordinances or state and federal statutes prohibiting certain conduct. The penalty is determined by the severity of the crime. How do we determine that? It is a rather subjective thing wouldn't you agree? There is a rather fine line between civil and criminal offenses. 
 We are doing that all the while claiming " freedom of speech. " We have placed a restriction on that when the consequence of that speech may cause harm to others. There can be civil penalties imposed. There can be consequences imposed for possible consequences. Think about that for a minute. I can  be penalized, in varying degrees, for things that might happen. Or, at least, things that are likely to happen. For instance, hate speech. I may cause anything from hurt feelings to a riot! Surely we are justified in placing civil restrictions on that. Everyone agrees. Well, almost everyone agrees anyway. There are those that would make hate speech a criminal offense. A further progression? Is protecting that form of speech an outdated concept?
 Just where am I going with all of this? I started out with the thought that the ultimate consequence for our actions has to be our conscious. This has to be true for the virtuous man. And yes, I mean women too, or whatever you identify yourself to be. Instilling the traits we consider to be virtuous has always been the function of spirituality. In the Christian tradition, the one I am most familiar with, there are four human virtues. Yeah, most of us have heard of the seven deadly sins. We are told to avoid those. But what are the four virtues? They are, not necessarily in order of importance, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance. Justice being the one we hear used the most these days but not as a virtue, as an action. Prudence is that virtue that causes us to act according to our moral compass. When you are prudent, you make the considered and correct choice. Fortitude is the strength to persevere when faced with life's difficulties. Temperance is best summed up with an old adage, all things in moderation. It is Justice that I began thinking about. Justice is not simply making retribution or imposing a penalty on your fellow man for his indiscretions. Justice is a personal thing. Justice is concerned with giving everything and everyone their proper due. We all know the phrase from the Constitution penned by Jefferson, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regarding the rights of every man. He wasn't the first to say such. John Locke has been attributed with that but I read where Adam Smith said it first. Whoever said it first isn't really important just understanding those rights are. If we understand that and act with Prudence, Temperance and fortitude Justice will have been served. Our conscience is our guide and our conscience holds us accountable. I would think that is why Monroe said, To suppose any form of government will secure Liberty and Happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea. In other words, man can not write laws that guarantee virtuous behavior. The best we can hope for from government is to govern, akin to Temperance. Prudence, Fortitude and Justice is up to the individual.