a lifetime of consequence

 I had a bit of a discussion regarding the Montgomery county school board decision to provide condoms, free of charge, to middle and high school students. The logic is straightforward. They feel it is a safety and health issue. To avoid any financial, or personal embarrassment, the school will provide them free of charge and without having to ask anyone.Their parents, or any other adults not having knowledge protects their privacy. Additionally it is to protect the students from disease or unwanted pregnancies. I understand all those reasons and the thinking behind them. I do however take exception to that line of thought. 

 I believe it is the responsibilty of the parents to educate their children in moral and ethical behaviors. The decision to engage in sexual activity and the consequences of that choice must be taught by the parents. I also believe it is the responsibilty of the school to reinforce and place further emphasis on the serious consequences of such choices/behaviors. And it is that, that arouses my objection to the  policy adopted by that school system. I question just what lesson is being taught here? Is it a lesson in responsibilty and accountability? I think not. I view it in quite a different manner. What I see being promoted is this: If I can avoid the consequences, the action becomes acceptable. To put it another way, it's alright as long as I don't get caught. That's the lesson I see.There is no wrongdoing unless we are caught?
 What I am really talking about of course is morality. Should we be encouraging teenagers to engage in premarital sex? Is that an acceptable action? Encouraging you say isn't the purpose of giving out those condoms, it's prevention. Well what other assumption is being made here, what are we saying exactly? We are telling these children, and that's what they are, school children, that we believe they will have sex no matter what. We are reaffirming a belief that they just can't control themselves, its' impossible. We agree you should just surrender to biology.That is why we are going to hand out those condoms for free to all. We have abandoned the idea of teaching responsibilty and accountability for your choices, they don't exist, if we can avoid the consequences. In fact, everything is alright if you can avoid the consequence.
 It's an old idea, this removal of consequence as justification for wrong actions. We buy " radar detectors "so we can speed in our cars. It's okay as long as you don't get caught, right? We have " apps " on our phone to direct us around weigh stations and police check points. It's alright to drive trucks overweight or in disrepair as long as we avoid those checkpoints. It's fine to drink and drive as long as you avoid the police. All the " little " things we accept, as long as we don't get caught or have to publicly admit to doing. It's the reason so many behaviors are now promoted as " acceptable " and " normal " that were traditionally known to be improper. It's why we label those behaviors as progressive, tolerant and empathetic. In that way we remove the consequences of those actions. We are no longer concerned with curbing those behaviors, the concern is the removal of consequence.
 All of this stems back to one thing, consequence. That's what people fear the most isn't it, consequence. And don't we think of consequences as a negative thing? That is what is generally conjured up, a picture of I'm going to have to " pay up " in some fashion. Strange isn't it how we so seldom think of consequence as a good thing. We all understand the importance of consequence, the very word itself implies that. Take the condom issue for instance. What are the possible consequences for not using them? Unwanted pregnancies and disease, right? Yes, we would all agree upon that. How could those consequences be avoided? By not engaging in sexual activities is the most certain way, in fact, it is 100% effective in preventing those unwanted consequences. But, at least n this case, that isn't the lesson being taught. What is being taught is how to avoid that consequence and brushing the action aside. It is a moral issue. And this school system has decided that it is easier to just avoid the consequences than to teach the lesson. We will just show you how to avoid them and no one need know, not even your parents. It's alright as long as you don't get caught.
 Now I understand that this is all a matter of religion. Morals are taught to us by religion. Why is that? Because our God(s) provide us with ultimate consequence. We will be held to account in whatever afterlife there is. Of course if we can remove that premise then there are no consequences beyond the ones here on earth. And those consequences only matter if we get caught, so, it's game on! We are now left with two choices, either dismiss the notion of God and consequence altogether, replacing that with science and verifiable proven facts, or just change what our God deems acceptable behavior. We can rewrite the book to suit our current wants avoiding any consequence whatsoever.
 So what does this have to do with the school? Morals and ethics should be taught at home. That is my firm belief. I also believe any publicly funded schools should, at a minimum, not undermine those morals. Providing condoms to students is sending a message. Having premarital sex is alright as long as you can avoid any consequence from that choice. The moral choice is secondary to the physical choice. It also sends the message, we know you can't resist those urges and there is no use in trying! We are here to provide you with a method to circumvent any consequences from your failure! You will fail! It's a message the kids are hearing every day. They hear at school, they hear it in ads on the television, they read it on social media. Planned Parenthood is preached and supported. Planned Parenthood says, use a condom but if that fails, kill the baby! No consequence to that action, it's legal. If you contract a disease Planned Parenthood may treat that disease, but that doesn't remove the consequences does it? No, only the requirement you pay for that treatment. Same thing in some people's thinking though.
 It is this removal of ultimate consequence that troubles me. I fail to understand how we can expect to live in a moral society without morality being the first lesson. We need to teach that there is the final consequence. If we teach the next generation, and each succeeding generation, that the only consequence to be had is here and now what will restrain them? How can that not develop into altruism? I believe we are seeing the beginnings of that today. There is a growing trend of no interest in the well being of others when that interest interferes with wants. I want to do this and I will do this regardless of how it effects you. I can do so because, it's my right! All that matters is the legal standard.
 Morality and mortality. Are they connected? Our mortality is certain, no avoiding that consequence.  What lives on beyond our mortal body. I would say it is our character, that is what others remember. All the great figures in history are remembered for what? Their character. It doesn't matter all that much whether that character was good or bad, the character is remembered. So it comes down to, what do you want remembered? Does it matter? That's the consequence I'm talking about. Handing out free condoms to school children, a little thing you say. The " right " thing to do. There are consequences you know. Consequence far beyond this moment, this immediate want. A lifetime of consequence. 

inspiration revisited

 I live in a rural area. I am treated every day to wonderful views. I enjoy the fields whether covered with corn or soy beans or the bare soil turned over. The land is quite flat around here and the view of the skyline is often unobstructed. There are times when the clouds hug the horizon and give the illusion of mountains. I see these images as an artist must see a painting. Photographers too enjoy the paintings of nature and can capture them. I have no such talent and can only capture them in my mind. Occasionally I attempt to write about them, my writing is the only medium I have and I feel that it is sorely lacking. But on the other hand that didn't stop Grandma Moses did it! Hers was called " primitive " art by some and folk art by others. I've never heard of writings referred to as such though, maybe I'll start a trend.
 Yesterday as I was driving to the gym for my morning workout, I've taken to doing that three days a week, I glanced over and saw this painting. It was a relatively new home with a very old barn sitting behind it. The barn was faded red and missing boards. There were no doors left, no windows held glass it was obviously empty and neglected. Just a glance and this thought entered my mind, " Old barns and old memories; and the secrets they hold." I thought it might make an interesting poem. Further thought rejected that idea and what I have written so far is the result. It is the thought of secrets that linger from that scene. What events had that old barn been witness too? Birth and death and all that transpires in-between. It had weathered wind and rain, frost and freeze. Battered, worn and showing signs of crumbling it still stands stark against the skyline. It stands proudly still, holding the secrets of the past. Secrets that will go untold. I questioned that, saying, isn't that the purpose of secrets, to go untold? Contemplating that further I wondered if that is what the artist or photographer can capture, those elusive secrets, untold, yet residing within the picture. Is that the thousand words we elude too? Is that what we " see " in works of art? I enjoy art that is labeled as " realism. " I'd call it literal. I wonder if it is that love of realism and writing that cohabit my mind that drives my writing. Not that I feel my writing is a form of art but it is an expression of thoughts, and isn't that the same thing?
 We should take inspiration from wherever we receive it. It is a gift from the universe, a gift from your God if you are so inclined to believe that. That inspiration revisited me yesterday in the form of a barn. It arrived in an instant and lingers. Writing these thoughts this morning I was reminded. I had written similar thoughts in a poem some years back. Back in August of 2012 to be exact. It was inspired by a photograph hanging on my wall. I'll share that here.
Memories and Photographs

memories and photographs
take me back in time
to relive a moment
that's uniquely mine

no one else can know it
no one else can see
a single captured moment
that belongs to me

whether black and white or color
be it new or old
the truth lies within them
waiting to be told

should it go unnoticed
and no where written down
the picture will become faded
and the memory not be found

and so I travel often
through the corridors of my mind
looking at the photographs
and memories left behind
A.B.Reichart

when all is right

 Hopefully we have a vote today. I spent most of yesterday just listening. I believe it was another moment in history that will be remembered and cited for years to come. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was obviously quite nervous and at times looked confused. Can't say as I blame her as a lot was riding on her testimony. Her story was somewhat credible but lacking enough detail to be compelling. Most telling to me is the refusal of any one else purported to be at this party to testify. All provided a statement saying they didn't remember any such gathering taking place. Another issue for me was all the information she claims not to remember. I didn't have a problem with her not remembering exactly, it was the excuse for not remembering that troubled me. She and her team attempted to convince me that it was perfectly normal for " survivors " to only remember certain things. Sorry, just sounded like a lame excuse to me and interjecting medical terms like the hippocampus and neuro-whatevers only added to that perception. But perhaps the insistence that the FBI provide her with information so she could testify sealed the deal for me. It came off as desperate for details, but details that can't be refuted. Who better to provide that information than the FBI, can't dispute what they say right? Well, that is my thoughts on her testimony.
  As far as Judge Kavanaugh goes I found him to be credible. I don't believe he was quite as " perfect " in his high school and college years as he would lead us to believe. I also believe that is a part of human nature. I'm just thinking given all the hoopla, all the investigating going on, if the best they can do is present his high school year book, the case is pretty thin. I found it interesting that they didn't present one , not one, other person that would say he had done anything inappropriate towards any woman. Never mind if he got drunk and barffed, I'm talking about inappropriate behaviors toward women. Not one even said, I knew him in College and he made advances! Not one. All they had were letters saying they heard or him, or knew of him, or had heard of him. Not one other woman said he did a thing in the last 27 years! Innocent until proven guilty and I saw no evidence, no proof whatsoever. I saw a yearbook with juvenile entries in it. All I can say is, when I die, if a funeral is held and services conducted, I sure hope my yearbook from high school isn't the defining document of my life! I hope I am not judged on that content.
 Now why Dr. Ford chose to blame Kavanaugh for something that happened to her, and I don't doubt something happened, I really don't know. She looked confused to me. I am thinking that she was later convinced. I'm thinking it was a political thing that inspired her writing that letter. I'm thinking she was hoping it would just end his eligibility, his name would be removed from the list. But, that didn't work out and she got pulled into a circle of political intrigue she is not equipped to deal with. She became convinced she had to stick with that story or face serious charges herself. I can hear a team of attorneys telling her such. I can also hear that team saying, don't worry we will protect you. And there you have it, game on. Just like that old country song says, " that's my story and I'm sticking to it. " I can't see where she had much of a choice. She became a pawn for the " metoo "  bunch, a pawn of the Democratic party and a pawn of the press. Unless she gets abandoned by the whole lot of them she will be rewarded. I see a book deal, a made for TV movie and at least one appearance on the View in her future. She will get to talk about the Hippocampus and neurons. Dr. Ford meets Dr. Phil!
 All of that is just a distraction from the real issue and everyone knows it. The direction of the country hangs in the balance, to coin a phrase. The composition of the Supreme court is of utmost importance. Maybe the average American isn't aware of that as much as those in Washington. I do believe awareness has been raised significantly in the last few years. The Supreme court is the conscience of the nation. That's why they issue opinions. Those opinions are based in what the Constitution says. The interpretation of that document, and all others that are relevant, is their function. Is Judge Kavanaugh a man of good conscience? That is the question and the answer is different depending upon your own definition of conscience. Think of it this way; can you proclaim to be a Christian and believe in the teachings of the Bible while supporting abortion? That is to say, Thou Shalt not Kill, unless I don't want the baby? What does your conscience tell you? That's the type of thing we are talking about here. Right and wrong, moral and immoral. What does the guiding document say? Do we get to rewrite that document every time we change our mind regarding those rights, wrongs, morals, or ethics? Do we get to change the meaning of words? It is really like that lawyer pointed out at the beginning of testimony yesterday, wouldn't you agree that we all have to agree on the meaning of words? That's kinda what the Supreme court does. Some on the court will dissent. They don't agree with the common, previously accepted or officially held opinion. We go by majority opinion.  Do we base law on our moral and ethical leanings, or are those determined by the law? Sadly, I believe law will ultimately form our moral basis simply because it is the easier path to follow. And sadly that path will lead to destruction in the end. When all restraint is removed, all inhibitions vanquished, when there is only " right " remaining we realize it is wrong. It is then we realize you can't legislate morality or ethics. You really don't get to " vote " on that.  
        

facts matter

 The big question is, who is responsible for the past? The answer is, those people in the past. I fail to see why that is so hard for so many to understand. I do not feel a bit of responsibilty for what my ancestors may, or may not have done. I wasn't there to influence, offer advice, enable or prevent any of that. What I am responsible for is today, this very moment. Even when the popular answer isn't popular, I am compelled to give that answer. Case in point, a presumption of innocence. That is part of the founding principles in this country we call the United States of America. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. That is the legal standard. Today is the senate hearing regarding the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. I expect it to be a bit of a fiasco. He said, she said, and what might have been, or might not have been. In this case the parties from the past are both here, in attendance. Each are responsible for the past, their past? Unless credible witnesses can present testimony to the contrary, the past is what each believe it to be. Isn't that the way it is with us all? Allow me to repeat that, " the past is what each believe it to be. "  My perception of past events is likely different from yours. We all present past intentions as actions in the future. That is to say, what my intentions where are often quite different than the action taken. My intention was to feed my family, not rob the bank!
 For that reason I must presume innocence. I must assume your intentions were not malicious or criminal. That's why we have a trial or a hearing, to establish the facts. Facts must be verifiable by independent parties. Yes, on Jerry Springer a " lie detector " is presented as sufficient evidence but we all know that it is unreliable. That's why it isn't permitted in a court of law. There is no test to determine what is truth simply because truth is subjective. Also why motive is often entered into as evidence. Motive defines intention correct? No that isn't correct, motive only provides a reason one may or may not have performed a specific action. Just because motive is present that doesn't prove guilt! In today's hearing will motives be questioned? I know one thing that is presumed already, that Judge Kavanaugh wanted to have sex with that girl. Will that motive be questioned? Hah, you know it will not because it is presumed every man wants to have sex at every opportunity. Even suggesting otherwise will be met with derision. You know it, I know it. That idea permeates our society.
 Now there are those that will dispute that statement. I can hear them now. It will be the same people proclaiming you must believe Christine Ford because she is a woman. And women only want to have sex when they want to have sex. They would never lie about that, ever. They may color their hair, lie about their age and mislead men with their intentions/actions but never lie about the results of those actions. The man is guilty because all men are guilty, and the girl is innocent because all girls are innocent. Everybody knows that. That is the card you play when there is no other evidence to present. All you can do is proclaim innocence. Maybe I can gather a few friends to support my claims, maybe I can get friends to say well he might have, and you might even get a friend to say ME TOO. But, the bottom line is still, no evidence. It's still she said, he said. It all goes to credibility. So what we are trying to determine is this. A 15 year old girl and a 17 year old boy are at a party together, drinking alcohol. She says he did this and he says I didn't do this anywhere at any time. He isn't saying I was at that party and didn't do it. No, he's saying I never did that anywhere at any time. She responds with, I don't remember where or when it happened, but it happened. Don't we have to begin with, what proof do you have that he was at a party with you? That's right, we can't assume they were even at a party together. Where you at the bank when it was robbed? If I can't prove that you're innocent right?
 It'll be an interesting testimony. Facts, that's all I want to hear. It'll be an emotionally charged hearing for certain. But innocence and guilt can not be determined by emotions. That's why a blindfolded lady stands there holding the scales. Facts matter. 

in the shadows

 I looked up at the pictures on my wall and suddenly got a strange feeling. Staring further at those images I realized I was looking at the past. The strange part is I am in some of those pictures. Not my baby pictures, or the ones from my youth, no these were taken just a few days ago it seems, yet reality tells me otherwise. One, as soon as a year ago is especially poignant. I'm there with my sister in law, but Joan has been gone for a year now. She stares out from the past and I am struck by that. My eldest brother, whose birthday is today, has been gone for almost four years. He would have been 71 today and the only Happy Birthday I can offer him is to the heavens. Scanning the rest of those old photographs I do see familiar faces, all too many faces from the past. And yet, I feel like they are all with me still, even the ones I never knew! I have been there before, in the past, and I look at this day, awaiting the future. 

 What I feel isn't a premonition, I'm not expecting anything to happen. My future is certain, as is all of ours. The day will come when we no longer walk this earth, but that doesn't mean we are gone. All it means is we are past. Can our spirit move from past to present? Can our spirit travel to the future? Those are the questions we all want the answers to, but never will. Or will we? Perhaps in the future we will, and perhaps that is where our spirit goes, into the future. Life goes on is an old familiar saying, all that is required is a definition of life, barring that faith.

 As I look at those pictures I am reminded of the past, of all that has gone before me. Truth is it is all behind me and that is a quandary we all must face. A quandary because if it where all to have gone before me, I would have had to already been. For some I know very little of their life, for others a great deal more, but I am struck with the truth that only I know the complete story of my own, at least up to the point that picture was taken. In those that I remember being taken I know the thoughts in my mind, something that can not be captured on film or digital media. Thoughts that will be forever lost once I move on. And I think maybe that is the strange feeling I experienced this morning. The faces staring out at me, their thoughts locked forever in that instant. It has been said a picture is worth a thousand words. It seems to me you must supply the words. I wonder what words the subjects would provide given the chance. I'm listening. 

 It was a strange feeling this morning. I mean we all know pictures are captured moments from the past. The strange feeling was seeing myself in that past, residing in history. It's a difficult thing to explain. None of my pictures place me in a historical moment. At least not a recognized historical moment. And yet I understand that each moment is history to someone, yesterday is history. The only question remaining is will someone remember that moment, for memories make history. Still, even moments unremembered are history aren't they? The picture untaken was still a picture, a moment in time. Where do those memories go, where does that history reside? As I said, a difficult thing to describe. I feel like I was looking back, back over my shoulder, and I saw the road behind me. I saw myself on that road, and I was a stranger. It was just a moment, a glimpse. And now I face the road before me, familiar, yet unknown. The future, like the past. Did I see my shadow over my shoulder, or was my shadow cast into the future? All depends upon the light doesn't it? If the light is before you, shadows follow. Turn from the light and shadows lie before you. Tomorrow and yesterday reside in the shadows, today the light is straight overhead. The question is; where are the shadows?  

it's magical

 It is a source of constant amazement to me. I hear and read every day how the government of this country or that country pays for this or that. I see posts on social media about how the united states is the richest country in the world, fact is we are not even in the top ten, and how the government won't pay for healthcare. I have read quite the missives regarding all of this, some from folks proclaiming great intelligence, they have letters after their names to prove it! And yet, this is the amazing part, they don't understand where that government money comes from. Nope, the government just has money. That money is magical! You can keep paying your taxes, at the current rate, and spend vastly more.
 I'm amazed. Take a look at the overall tax burden in the United States, that includes personal and corporate, and we have one of the lowest rates in the world at about 25%. Everyone else has an average of 34%. When it comes to taxing corporate profits however, the United States has one of the highest minimum rates at 35%. I'd say that was taxing the wealthiest segment of the population but yet many of these folks claim otherwise. There are too many rich people in the United States that should pay more! Isn't that what you hear and read all the time? The government should pay more. But where should the government get that money from? The government doesn't have to get money, the government has money. That's the general perception here and I am amazed!
 Then I hear about the socialist approach. Everyone gets the same, everyone has the same. The government pays for healthcare for everyone and everyone gets treated exactly the same. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, you get the same thing! Of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't be rich or poor, you can still keep your money, it's only that magical government money that should be spent on these programs and benefits. If that sounds ridiculous that's because it is. Yet, try this the next time someone starts complaining how the rich people need to pay more. Ask that person if they are blindly willing to put their wallet on the table. You will put yours next to it. Whoever has the most must give the other person enough to make them equal! I haven't had anyone willing to accept that challenge yet. It is usually met with laughter, a nervous laughter, because they don't want to risk their money. Now try that with bank accounts. But that is exactly what these folks are proposing aren't they? If I can't afford whatever, someone, in this case the government, should have to pay for it for me, an equal amount. Government money isn't my money, it's your money. That's the thinking and again I'm amazed.
 The government should have far more money to spend but the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay more taxes. No, only the rich people should have to pay that. I shouldn't have to shell out another dime but those fat cats should have to pay up. They should empty their wallets until it is equal to mine! Well, unless I should become one of those fat cats, then that's different right? I will never have too much money. They have too much money! That's the thinking. And there is the crux of the matter. How much is too much? How much is that amount we call discretionary? That's what the rich folks call it anyway, discretionary money, to be used at there own discretion. Thing is you want to be in control of that fund. That's basically what socialism amounts too. You get to work and earn all the money you want. Then the " government " decides what to do with the discretionary funds you have left after paying your " fair " share. Mostly they just give it to those that aren't as successful as you. Hey, it's only fair right? Then you get that warm fuzzy feeling that I live in a country with a caring, compassionate and loving government. A government that's not like an Uncle, more like a grandmother. Making sure everyone is treated exactly the same and everyone gets an equal share of the pie. Yes, that's wonderful. Who needs a poor Uncle that expects you to contribute when you can have a Grandma that just gives you stuff. Grandma has government money and it's magical.  

who's the victim

 I asked yesterday if an accusation by a woman of sexual assault is the nuclear option. I asked for an accusation of equal power that a man could make. I got a few responses but no answers. I really didn't expect any answers as the question is really sarcastic. I am aware that sarcasm seldom works on social media but put it out there anyway. I was prepared for backlash and surprisingly didn't receive any. This question was posed in response to the news reporting concerning Kavanaugh and this Dr. Ford. The majority of the news reporters and analysts all say, she must be believed! Despite a lack of any credible evidence, despite the fact the Judge has undergone six background checks by the FBI, she must be believed. After all, she says it happened. More troubling is the reality that no matter what happens, his reputation will forever be tarnished. Additionally there is no equitable remedy for the accused. Perhaps the Judge could sue later on for defamation but can a monetary reward replace a reputation? And for that reason I ask if these accusations are the nuclear option for a woman? Can a man allege the same and be taken seriously? No, the answer is no. The response would be, " he got lucky! " Is there an entire movement behind men saying " me too " and I must be believed?
 These accusations are the perfect set up aren't they? I mean, any accusation is met with instant sympathy! Oh you poor woman, it must have been horrible! The longer you wait to " report " it, the more of a victim you become. The fewer witnesses you have, the stronger your accusation becomes. That accusation reaches full strength when there is no evidence at all! Then, your word must be taken and the accused is guilty! It is a nuclear option, no survivors!
 Now I admit I hadn't really heard of Brett Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford before all this began. For that reason I believe I am quite impartial in my judgement. I can say, based on whatever testimony and evidence presented I do not find her credible. She has changed her story a few times already. He has had numerous people , including at least 75 women, come forward in support of him. I can't believe half of what is reported on social media and so discount any of that. I just feel like if there where anything to these charges they would have manifested themselves long ago. Her own witnesses are saying it never happened. Yes, this very morning I heard another woman has come forward saying " me too " this time alleging he exposed himself to her, supposedly during a college drinking game. Yeah, okay, and I played spin the bottle, was that an assault? We'll have to wait for further testimony on all of that. But, as I said, it is a nuclear option because you are not supposed to even question it. By questioning that testimony you will be accused of a string of things, misogynist the least among them. So what is the answer? There is none.
 I am setting aside any political feelings and leanings I have. I have just been listening to what is being reported. I have heard nothing credible to substantiate her claim. If it is to be believed I have to weigh what I know to be plausible. A fifteen year old girl is at a party with older boys, without adult supervision, and there is drinking going on. I find it improbable that she was not drinking and was presenting a pure and chaste demeanor. Now, I'm not saying she was asking for it, that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm just presenting a scenario I feel credible. Could be something happened that scared her. She doesn't tell anyone, most especially her parents, because? She is 15 at an unsupervised party with older boys. Eventually her parents move to California, she attends college, and gets her degree in physcology. She studies the effects of trauma upon people. Over thirty years goes by, she develops her political affiliations and leanings as we all do. She becomes aware of the " me too " movement, empowering women to testify to every trauma that has ever occurred to them. Opportunity presents itself. A man she once knew, although quite casually, may have been, could have been, possibly at a party where she was. A chance to step into the limelight! A chance to advance my career, my notoriety as a physcologist and validate my research! ME TOO! And it will be a national stage, guaranteed. It's the nuclear option because I can't lose. Even when the dust settles and Kavanaugh gets the nomination I can write a book, make a tv movie and go on the talk show circuit. Yup, I'm dropping that bomb! And to top it all off, I will forever hear, oh you poor woman, it must have been terrible. You are a victim. No one is allowed to suggest anything different either!             

church and state

 The other day I saw a meme on Facebook opposing the words " In God we Trust " being on our currency. I don't recall the meme exactly but it included the phrase " e pluribus Unum " as well. I chuckled at first because whoever wrote the meme interpreted that Latin phrase incorrectly. They had it completely backyards saying out of one, many. I believe they were trying to make a case for diversity and inclusiveness in America. The premise was, that's why the motto E pluribus Unum. It was representing all the immigrants that are America or some such thought. Of course I agree that America is a nation of immigrants. history doesn't lie, but the concept was, and is, out of many one, Americans! Anyway, this person went on to explain that In God we Trust was added due to the Godless threat of the Russians. Yes, right after WW2 during the cold war when we were all afraid the Russians would bomb us instead of rigging our elections. My comment then was that phrase was reaffirmed by Congress on July 30, 1956 and approved by Eisenhower, declaring it appear on all U.S. currency.
 I did find this interesting and so did some more reading about it. First I discovered that Barack Obama had brought this to the forefront of American thinking in 2011 when he erroneously said " E pluribus Unum " is the national motto. That's right, a sitting president didn't know what the national motto really was. I forgive him for that as I wasn't 100% per cent certain myself, of course I ain't the president speaking to thousands of people so nobody would notice. Anyway, the point is do you know what the national motto is? In God we Trust is the answer. First appearing on a two cent piece in 1864 at the tail end of the civil war. It was a reaffirmation by the government, at the insistence of numerous religious leaders, that our government was a kind and compassionate government and most importantly abided by Christian principles. Remember this is during the civil war when the country was divided and so many were mourning the loss of life. There is solace in faith, in the belief in God. Both sides had prayed for that God to be on their side! Such is the case in all wars. The north prevailed and wanted to show that common faith, and so In God we Trust seemed appropriate. I kept reading and came upon this quote from Thomas Jefferson. " The God who gave us life gave us liberty" and at the same time asked, " Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are of God? " That was penned in 1774. Remember it was only 90 years removed from 1774 that the civil war was taking place. I'm certain those memories and writings were still fresh in the minds of patriots and politicians. We are talking about 1864. Also just 50 years prior we had the defense of Baltimore in the war of 1812 where Francis Scott Key penned the words to our national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, and in the last stanza of that song these words are written, " and this shall be our motto: In God is our Trust and the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave, o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." So there you have it. The words were paraphrased to fit on our coins and currency, to be as succinct as possible. In God we Trust.
 You see it had nothing to do with the Russians, communism, or immigrants. It was a concern of moral and just behaviors. The implication being we were placing the safety and security of our nation in the hands of God. God was to unite and heal our nation as he/she had always done. God was involved in the founding process, God was written into the founding documents and indeed God was in the forefront of the thinking of our legislators and statesmen. Guidance came from the divine. I do find it a bit ironic that it should be emblazoned upon our currency and coins.
 The two driving forces in the creation, formation and sustaining of a nation, God and Money! We pray to our Gods for wisdom and guidance in our lives. We trust in our God because the word of God is our security. For God and country! I did read another thought from the mind of Thomas Jefferson. He shared this, " Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. " Quite a foreboding statement wouldn't you say? You know in a way by placing our national motto " In God we Trust " upon that currency and coin we are acknowledging the words of Jesus when his response was, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars' and unto God that things that are Gods'. In modern parlance the kids might say, in your face! Just as Jesus was telling those folks he condemned the taxes being imposed upon the people in a way that's what that motto is saying as well. Money isn't the most important, In God we Trust. The separation of church and state.  

what is the answer

  Yesterday I wrote about the shooting at Aberdeen, Maryland. This morning the news is reporting the shooter had been diagnosed with a mental illness a few years ago. She was allowed to purchase a firearm despite that. And so the debate is opened up once again about gun control. This time it centers around a background check and your health records. Mental health is the same as having a heart attack or back spasm isn't it? Or we are going to treat mental health in a totally different fashion? What I mean is, that mental health records are public information, not protected by privacy laws?  More importantly is a diagnosis of mental illness a permanent diagnosis? Can you be treated, released, and all your rights restored? In short are we going to give a doctor the power to control your freedom? As it stands presently you can only be detained for mental health evaluation for 72hours. Following that a hearing must be conducted and testimony from mental heath professionals heard. If there findings are that you require mental health treatment you can ordered into a facility. It does requires an affidavit signed by at least two qualified individuals. Your rights are protected by a number of checks. It depends a lot upon the state you are in and whether or not you have committed a crime.
 Now I would agree it is never a good idea to arm the mentally ill. My issue lies with the determination of mental illness. Just what is the criteria? And just what " illness " disqualifies you from purchasing a gun? I'm no expert on any of this stuff but I assume paranoia is a mental illness. Would that disqualify me? What about any number of phobias? Social anxiety? Low self esteem or egomania. Which ones warrant the removal of my constitutional rights? These are the question I ask, along with, can I be cured? If I am cured does that restore my rights? If I can't be cured just what am I going to the doctor for? If I go to a rehabilitation center for drug or alcohol abuse they never cure anybody, just ask them. No, they say if you have a relapse it isn't because of a failure of treatment, that's your fault. Why? Because they are not going to accept responsibilty for that, plain and simple.
 Now if I am a mental health professional and I treat you am I then going to accept the responsibilty if you have a relapse? I highly doubt that! If you have had your right to own a gun removed for mental health issues and I am the one that declares you cured, you get your gun back and shoot someone, whose fault is that? Sounds like a lawsuit to me! Or would it take at least two " professionals " to declare me cured. Another point is, at what threshold am I declared insane? Is everyone with a mental health issue insane? The answer is no. Why is that? Or are there degrees of insane, as in, I'm only a little crazy. How crazy do I have to be to get my rights taken away? See the issue here? Are all insane people violent? Well of course not, but they all have the potential. Truth is we all do, so how do you measure that? One slip of the old cog and your rights are gone, forever!
 What is the answer to this dilemma. Do we just remove the rights of everyone? Just say, only competent people, as determined by the government, are allowed to own firearms? But isn't that exactly what the founding fathers were concerned with when writing the constitution and bill of rights, an oppressive government? That oppression is maintained and controlled by what, superior firepower is the answer there. Yes, by force! Do we place the responsibilty for determining who gets a gun and who doesn't in the hands of mental health professionals? My question there is do they all agree on diagnosis and treatment? What I'm saying is are there any differences of opinion among these professionals regarding diagnosis? If there are, and I'm certain there must be, which ones are right and wrong? How do we determine that? Will it be the ones that fall in line with the government powers? Are they the ones that gain favor? A bit of an issue isn't it? It is my belief no matter how much education and training you may have, in the end, it is a matter of opinion. There are no set in stone standards! What we have are social standards of conduct and behaviors. Those standards and conduct are subject to change. As an example consider those folks from the LGBTQ community. They hold parades were some of them are dressed in leather costumes and are being lead on leashes while being struck with a whip. I'd say you have a mental illness but they say, I like it! See the problem there. That scenario can apply to any number of behaviors that are different from my own. Should those folks have their rights removed? Ask me and I'd say no, although I do think they have a mental illness. So just what is the answer?      

Why

 There was another shooting in Maryland yesterday. A twenty six year old woman took a 9mm Glock pistol to work and shot seven people including herself. The police have not determined a motive. That is the headlines this morning as well as the coverage most of the day yesterday. It is that I am thinking about. The question is, and remains why? In all these instances the motive always remains the primary focus. But can we ever know the why? For me, the question is always, how could we prevent this from happening again? Sadly, I have to admit the answer is, we can't. I don't see any possible way to prevent people from doing terrible things. It is not so much the instrument used but the persons' willingness to do it. That is why the focus on motive. Man has always wondered why.
 There will some murmurings about gun control once again. It wasn't one of those scary assault rifles this time and she had purchased the gun legally. In fact, she was hired as a security guard, so she must have passed certain background checks. The fact that a 9mm Glock is a semi-automatic pistol will be lost on a lot of people. They will not equate that with a assault rifle. Fact is, they are pretty much the same thing. Still the cries will go up from a few that no one should have the ability to own a weapon. That will be their answer, their solution. I offer no answer, no solution, because I have none. Like the news reporters, the FBI and everyone else, I wonder why. Why do people decide to do these things? What do they hope to accomplish? And my answer is always the same. I don't know. I do know there isn't a "one size fits all" answer. And that leads me to ask, does it matter at all? I mean does the motive matter ? It does only if known beforehand, in which case the action may be prevented from taking place. Knowing the motive after the fact does little besides satisfying a curiosity. The thing is, that's all that is left isn't it? Questions ? Why?
 We all know that motive is what drives us to do something. Whether it is hunger, thirst, anger, greed or whatever we respond to those stimuli with an action. That is motive. What would motivate a person to kill another person, or a number of other persons? That is the question we face. When the motive is known, we seem to accept that as a reasonable response, to a degree. We even have " justifiable homicide " as a defense and everyone agrees that is reasonable enough. Yup, there are instances where a person needs killing, or at least where it is justified. When the motive isn't known however, there are no such assumptions. If multiple persons are killed it magnifies the tragedy. We want to know why, even though if it isn't war and they aren't enemy combatants, there will never be a justifiable reason. And isn't that the reason we seek motive? To understand why? If we know why, we can accept it. We can't understand insanity and that is the bottom line. For that reason I say we can't know the motive, not really. Just saying, that person was nuts, isn't enough. We want to know why the person was nuts. We want to know how could we have prevented that. We want to know! We want to know because we all feel vulnerable. It's a self preservation thing. It's instinct. I want to know why.
  If I know why I can rationalize a scenario where it won't happen to me. It could be as simple as, take away all the guns, and no one gets shot. That appears to be a popular scenario these days. The rationale being, if there aren't any guns I can't get shot. In that case we are blaming the instrument, not the person. But what is the motive?  We don't know and don't care as long the shooting stops. What about mental illness though? How do we determine that? Just how do we determine that mental illness is the motive behind these actions? Well, because its' just crazy isn't it? Of course it is! And what is the remedy? Just who decides upon that? We need to know why? Why did this happen?  What can be done to prevent this in the future? Why?                  

one moment at a time

 Fall is upon us once again. Already I see a hint of color in the treeline. Corn fields have been cut and the land is bare once again. School buses cause delays on the morning commute. I noticed the fall grass with the last mowing. Just a few more times for that this year, and I'll be grateful that chore is done. Soccer is in full swing at the high school. It is the last season for my grandson, as he is a senior this year. It's the only sport he plays and so with the end of soccer season, so too, his soccer career. I don't expect he'll play in college. These are all markers, markers of time and time is relentless.
 My own birthday is in July but the majority of my family members celebrate theirs in September. September has always been filled with birthday cake and celebrations, My Dad, my mom, my two brothers, their spouses and some of their respective children, all in September. I discovered that the 16th of September is the most common day for a birthday in the United States. An interesting bit of trivia. September always meant back to school as a child and that trend continued all the way to the grand kids. It became a time for backpacks but this year I hear backpacks are banned at the high school. A sign of the times I suppose. The elastic straps I used to hold my books were banned, labeled as dangerous weapons and now the backpack. No telling what a kid might be hiding in there! And time moves ever forward.
 How many more years can we expect public schools to operate? My grandson believes it is an institution that will one day be gone. They will be replaced by charter schools or something similar. I can see that as the public schools are getting too large and too difficult to manage. The public school system worked well but I agree with my grandson, its' time is limited. There are already schools that operate year round and graduate their students in three years instead of the traditional four. Faster, we must go ever faster in a futile attempt to catch up with time. Man has always done so, and it continues.
 Maybe it because I turned 65 this year. Maybe its' because I have a brother that just celebrated his 69th birthday. And oh, Mom was 89 on that most popular of dates for a birthday, the 16th of September. Maybe it is because I heard the honking of a goose far off and distinct but heading my way. Maybe it is the realization that my sister in law passed over a year ago and I just heard an old neighbor of mine passed last Friday. All measurements and markers in a lifetime. My lifetime! I don't know how long that will be, I don't know how long any of this will be, but I know that time goes on. The changing of the seasons always bring these thoughts to me. The spring brings excitement and hope, the summer arrives as a relief and fall as a return. And winter, winter is a quiet time of cold and wind. Winter is solitude and reflection. Winter is the end. And yet, there will always be a spring, a new beginning, and for that reason we should celebrate. Celebrate the harvest! Time moves ever forward and is relentless. Enjoy every moment, every milestone, every attraction along the way. Times goes on forever. And I wonder where we will go. I've decided we go to join those that have gone before, and time goes on, just as it always has. Relax, enjoy the changing landscape, the changes in the sky. Take comfort in time, time is forever with you. You can't go back in time or jump ahead. Time is now, right this very moment. You can't lose it, spend it or waste it. All you can do is live in it, one moment at a time.          

Character

 Listening to the Brett Kavanaugh thing and couldn't help but start wondering, has no man ever been sexually harassed or assaulted? Surely in the last forty years or so that has happened. Can it be that a man just hasn't decided to tell or are we, I put myself in that group, me too, just waiting for a women to be nominated to the supreme court? Senator Kamala Harris has released a video about Brett that is less than factual, in fact, it s under close scrutiny from both parties. There is a rumor she is being groomed for the presidency. She does head some committee concerning women's rights in the congress. Strangely there is no counterpart to that group, you know, a committee concerning the rights of men. But, then again men are never sexually harassed, it just doesn't happen right? Hmm, well one can always hope, isn't that the thinking?
 My questioning is if the roles were reversed would the Democrats be insisting on an FBI investigation and a delay on the vote for supreme court justice? Well, what do you think? There is no denying that are plenty of women in powerful positions, so opportunity exists. Surely at some time in the last forty years or so a man felt " uncomfortable " or " pressured " in the workplace. Or are men just supposed to allow all that without a second thought. I mean, we're men for Gods sake, that's all we want is sex! You know I believe that I was at a party, somewhere, at some time, and some girl touched me inappropriately! Of course we were all drinking so I don't remember much, but I remember that face! If she ever runs for political office or wins the lottery I'm telling! No need to say anything at this point, nothing to gain by that right now.
 The big issue, as I hear the Democrats express it, is determining the character of this man. That's because they can be no criminal charges brought against Judge Kavanaugh even if there were video and audio evidence of the whole alleged incident. So basically what we are witnessing is a character assassination! What else could you call it? Unsubstantiated claims that we all know can never be proven or disproved without having a time machine. Also we must remember you can't apply 2018 sensibilities to actions taken in 1982. What I'm saying here is what was acceptable then may not be acceptable now or vice versa. Think of it this way, how many single mothers were running for political and social offices in 1982? What was thought of their character back then? Isn't that what all this " progress " is supposed to eliminate? The girls that were known as " loose " back in my day are now just " sexually active. " Their character isn't called into question about any of that is it? No, because it is 2018. So to say we are going to investigate his character is in reality just a prejudicial attempt to disqualify him. Just what standards of conduct are we going to say are good, better and best? I would call her character into question. Just what was a 15 year old girl doing at a party with seniors, drinking and unsupervised? Just what was her character then? 1982, a party girl? She didn't resist, her didn't scream and make a fuss, didn't go home crying and tell her parents? Why not? Probably because she didn't want her character known.
 Now I hear she may not testify before congress after all. No, she is demanding an investigation before she does that. Last I knew you had to make accusations before an investigation was launched. If you're not willing to do that before the very bunch you want to order that investigation that calls your credibility into question, at least in my mind it does. I figure the deal is this, she wants the FBI to find evidence that doesn't exist. The FBI has, on four other occasions done background checks on Kavanaugh with no inkling of any wrongdoing or " bad " character traits. The whole thing is just designed to delay his confirmation, plain and simple. It is true it is far more difficult to impeach a sitting justice than to just allow him to be confirmed in the first place. Still, go ahead and confirm him. If the FBI uncovers credible evidence or proof sufficient to impeach him, impeach him. That's called being innocent until proven guilty. What I want to know is, how do you determine the character of a man? Where is the list? Or are we just going to wing it and say we think he may have, could have, maybe might have, or thought about it, so therefore his character is in question. I mean after all, he was 17 at the time, he should have known better than to be at any underage drinking party with another minor girl, definitely a character flaw that should disqualify him.
    

at one time

 The current topic is Kavanaugh and the confirmation hearings. I'm not going to delve into all the political bashing of the Democrats as it is my belief we all know what the agenda there is. They are desperate to prevent this confirmation or at the very least stall it until after the mid-terms. Election time in America, It should bring out the best in America but sadly it draws out the worst in some cases. Well whenever money and power are involved that really should be expected. And that is just the way of the world. But the latest ploy, this accusation of wrongdoing from 36 years ago is just a reflection of that. Yes, it is a ploy by an ally. I can't help but wonder what was offered in return for her cooperation. But, I said I wouldn't attack the Democrats so I'll just leave that out there.
 I'd tell you I don't want to be a " I told you so " but the fact is that is one of the more gratifying things in my life. Yes, I love being able to say that. I admit it freely and without apology. I can say it in this instance because I did write about this whole metoo movement in the past. I had pointed out how this could be used as a weapon to malign, disparage or even destroy innocent people. It goes along with this whole I'm a survivor mentality. The whole I deserve so much more, it's a right attitude. Me too, Me too! Like kids in a candy store, it's not fair, me too. Makes me sick. There is no evidence, nothing but the word of a women from 36 years ago that she was assaulted. Yet, we are supposed to believe every word she says because its', " me too. "Thirty six years after the fact and now I need to tell my story. C'mon we are supposed to take that seriously?
 That's about how I feel. If she was so concerned why didn't she say so when his nomination was announced? I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't follow his career and so wasn't aware that he became a judge at all. Okay, so now it is announced he is a candidate for the Supreme court. Why not speak up immediately? Why wait until the Democratic party, having submitted four times the number of questions asked of any previous candidate, the political party you affiliate with failed to disclose anything derogatory. Could it be we will submit a question that can not be answered?  But it's not a question, it's an accusation that can not be proven or disproved. We will employ the me too tool! You have to believe what the woman says or risk being labeled in a very negative way. Notice the hesitation by the GOP to point all that out and just dismiss it altogether. No, they are forced to posture at the very least. It's a no win situation and the Democrats are well aware of that. My hope is that it blows up in their face and takes some of the momentum out of this me too movement nonsense. We need to return to innocent until proven guilty. I say, investigate. If wrongdoing is discovered remove Judge Kavanaugh from the bench, if no wrongdoing is found, the woman should be subjected to penalty equally as severe. Strip her teaching credentials and get her a job at McDonalds. That's the only me too that should be involved in this fiasco. I'm accusing someone of wrongdoing. A fair and impartial trial is held. That person is found innocent, the accuser pays the penalty for lying. That's how it should work. It did work that way at one time. 
    

it's accidental

 Let me begin by saying I purchased my purple light bulb and have it illuminated on my porch. You do know about that right? It is a national campaign to raise awareness about drug overdose. That's what the brochure says and it's a national crisis. On the bright side, no pun intended, those overdoses are accidental. Hey, it happens when using street drugs that are of questionable quality and purity. But those folks are addicts, it's not their fault, it's an accident. We need to raise awareness of this problem. We will burn purple lights, wear tee shirts and ribbons and make everyone aware that using illegal drugs in dark alleys can be lethal! I admit that's about as far as I will go, not sure what everyone else is doing. I suspect it is like a lot of things these days, we will pronounce the obvious, show our righteous indignation that such should take place, or even exist in the first place and feel better for having done so. We acknowledge the obvious and then move on. How many ribbons do you wear? It is a sign of the times you know. Ribbons show your support!
 As you probably guessed by now I'm not all that enthused with the purple light campaign. My problem is this concept of raising awareness. I wonder just who are we trying to make aware of what? If you need a campaign to tell you using illegal drugs is a bad thing, you have more problems than I can deal with. If you are not already aware that people are overdosing on illegal drugs you do need to get out more. But it's accidental! I don't think so. Those drugs don't wind up in your system by accident! They are injected or ingested on purpose. I've never used them but I am aware of that much. No one is restraining these people and making them take drugs. It is their choice. It is a risk they assume and I'm convinced they are well aware of that. This whole narrative of it being accidental just rubs me the wrong way. No, those people are responsible for their own demise by choosing to use illegal street drugs of questionable quality and purity. It's crisis alright, a crisis of stupidity and poor judgement. And in my eyes we are enabling it. As long as we keep telling those addicts that they can't help themselves, and it's not their fault, it will continue. When they are not held to account for their choices they will continue. As long as we continue to hold up someone that " survived " and made a " recovery " as a shining example, it will continue. How many do we hold up as examples that are saying, I've never used illegal drugs because I realize the dangers involved in doing so. No, those folks are ridiculed  as " not knowing what they are talking about " because they didn't choose to make very poor choices and survive that. Listen to the addict instead, they know the deal. Yeah, they know the deal alright.
 But, I bought my light and have it lighted. When you drive by my house and see it you can think, their lives a compassionate man that's trying to make a difference. That man be " woke. " And isn't that the real purpose of displaying that light or ribbon? We need to let others know, we know. We know that people overdosing by accident is a bad thing. We know that it is a crisis. Thing is, we also should know there is little we can do about it because that is a personal choice. But that is the part we will delude ourselves about. It's the same thing with any number of causes these days. Man will control the climate of the earth, and erase prejudice from the minds of man. Well, at least we are aware of that right? Right and that's good enough.
 Well, I have to go for now but this was on my mind. Raising awareness? Aware of what is my question. That it's not their fault? It's accidental?            

sleeping dogs

 In the old days there were things that we just didn't talk about. You didn't speak ill of the dead or bring up old wrongdoings. The saying was, let sleeping dogs lie. The reason for doing so was obvious enough. If you startle a sleeping dog he just might bite you! That was all part of a mindset of getting along with each other. Minding your own business was another popular pastime too. But today, today the trend is to dig up the past, especially if there was wrongdoing, and use that past to batter the present. We claim we do so in the interest of history being told, we need to know the truth of it. A reasonable argument that contains sound logic but misused does little more than foster hate, anger and more division. There are times when it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. I'd say that was so when there is no benefit to be gained by waking that dog up.
 I'm seeing a pattern develop. We have started examining the past for the most unjust, unsound, and downright terrible acts or decisions made, and bringing them into the present. No one would or could offer a reasonable justification for these acts, no one would support them, but yet we feel compelled to wake them up! I question the true motive for doing so. It's a question of, do I need to know that? Is that knowledge going to be of any benefit? Or, is the sole purpose to illicit sympathy or compassion for present day peoples for what occurred a hundred years or more ago? The real question is, should we benefit from the past? What I mean to say is, if my great grandfather were cheated should reparations be paid to me? Is that justice? It is if you subscribe to the theory that justice is measured in dollars and cents, a common belief these days it would appear. The benefit we should receive from the past is knowledge. We should have learned from those acts to never allow them to happen again. And that's the thing. The " history " I see being brought up is well known to be wrong, we knew it was wrong at the time we first did it! But those actions were enabled by what? Mostly greed would be my answer. If it is profitable we will find a way to justify it. That's man's nature, always has been, and continues to be so. And that leads us to the situation we find ourselves in today. One group of people saying we correct that by just giving everyone the same thing, and the other group saying we need to hold people accountable for their choices.
 The first group has taken to using the past as a weapon. They present unjust actions from the past as a weapon to prevent holding people accountable for present day actions. Your great grandparents or other ancestors were wronged a hundred years ago or more, therefore you should be compensated today. By presenting a set of " facts " that are indisputable and as unjust as possible, we can justify the injustice of the present time. When the second group protests that, they are just labeled racists or a plethora of other equally unsavory names.
 Now the second group preaches about just actions. Just actions will lead to just results. I place myself in that group. I do believe in personal accountability and responsibilty for my choices. Nothing that happened to my parents or any other ancestors has prevented me from accomplishing anything. I am also not entitled to anything due to their efforts, or lack of those efforts. I'm certain in the course of human history I could find some horrific injustice that was perpetrated against my ancestors. That still doesn't make me entitled to anything!
 But I began by talking about letting sleeping dogs lie. The old folks practiced that and in some cases it was to our detriment. Much information was lost, mostly personal stuff though. History wasn't lost. The things man did were recorded and the things society did as well. The ancients sacrificed human beings in an effort to gain favor with their Gods. Peoples conquered other peoples to gain land or other valuable commodities. People have enslaved other peoples. The list of injustice and downright cruelty is an unending string throughout the history of mankind. There were those that knew it was wrong at the time, mostly the ones it was being done to pointing that out, but inherently we always knew. So my point is what benefit does it do to bring that up today? It may only benefit those that can make some claim, no matter how tenuous, to that injustice. And then only if you can get the majority to agree. It is not a benefit, but a weapon. It is an attempt to correct past injustice by allowing injustice today. It does more harm than good. And for that reason I say, let sleeping dogs lie, not to hide the past but to brighten the future. You can't change the past, you can't correct that, all you can do is improve in the future.
 I am fully aware that this isn't a popular view or opinion today. I expect to hear a bunch of arguments about how we need to expose the injustice of the past. We all need to know about who was wronged by whom and when that happened. I expect there are those that will accuse me of sticking my head in the sand. As I said, I'm fully aware. My point is simply that we all know that inherently! No one needs to be taught about that stuff. Unfortunately many do whatever they are allowed to do, whatever they can get away with. Doesn't make any difference if it is an individual or an entire nation. That's why we have laws, customs and traditions to delineate that. It was those laws, customs and traditions that allowed the injustices of the past to take place. Hopefully man has put the majority of these injustices to bed, maybe, just maybe, we should leave them there. If we don't, they might all come back to bite us.        
           

sharing

 The greatest joy one can have is in sharing. Whether is it sharing our stories or sharing the objects that bring you happiness, they are only truly enjoyed when shared with others. That was my thought this morning as I looked around my home. I do have little objects, nick-knacks and gee-gaws scattered about. Some of these things are very old, some purchased just yesterday but it makes little difference. I enjoy seeing them, but enjoy sharing them even more.
 What is the premise of decorating? The object is to present items for others to view, admire and ultimately desire. Yes, we hope others enjoy those object, to share the love of that object with ourselves. Of, course that is on a personal level, commercial interests aside. And that in and of itself is the telling feature. My most treasured objects are not for sale at any price. That is true when the object is not inherently valuable, like a crayon picture drawn by your grandchild. Our most valuable commodity? Our memories. The value lies in sharing.
 I think about how my memories will one day be nothing more than stories. That is one of the motivations I have for writing these blogs and other musings. I want my memories to live on even when I am gone. It is my hope that they can remain as memories for someone else and not just a dusty old story told by a stranger. But I am aware that is not possible, at least for me it isn't. You could argue that the great authors have succeeded in doing that. Their names are spoken almost daily by someone. I'm thinking of authors like Mark Twain, Hemmingway or Steinbeck. But you could also argue they didn't write memories in the first person, they were telling a tale. Still, they are remembered and that is the goal here.
 But, for today, for now, my joy comes from the sharing of them. I present them with the expectation that others will enjoy them. I don't write anything to deliberately make others dislike me, or my thoughts, what would be the purpose in that? Wouldn't that be like hanging a picture you hate on your living room wall? To what end? Although I think some people just hang whatever is the popular choice at the moment in an attempt to impress, or be included. No other explanation for those choices that I can discern. But, I digress here. I was talking about sharing.
 When we share and others don't like what we share that is unsettling. I believe everyone would have to agree with that statement. It does bring our choices into question. Our reaction to that is what defines our character and our personal fortitude. Do you vigorously defend your choices or capitulate to the others opinions? The truly confident person does neither, they just continue on their path. The reason for that? Because sharing is not an attempt to influence, it is a presentation of love. Nothing is required in exchange. Sharing is a gift, a gift is only a gift when nothing is expected in return. One can only offer a gift, the acceptance of that gift is beyond our control.         

you know better

 Just a short observation this morning as I rush to get my day started. The worst deadlines are self imposed deadlines and I really do have to get going. But being a creature of habit, I am compelled to write a few sentences. So I leave these few comments for you to ponder as you go about your day.
 I had mentioned the other day that the Montgomery county high schools had established a policy of handing out free condoms to all the students. Just go to the health center, what we called the Nurses station, and get your condoms. My first thought was all these kids carry six hundred dollar I-phones but can't afford to buy a condom? Well, I posted that comment and was met with a barrage of responses. Those responses ranged from those kids need those condoms to act in a responsible and mature fashion to they shouldn't have to be shamed by purchasing those condoms in a public store!
 The most common reason I read was, well they are going to have sex anyway so we should provide condoms for them. That was the answer to me suggesting that we teach the children to not have sex before marriage. You know, start teaching morality and ethics, that sort of thing. Personal responsibilty and self control. Well I have to tell you the majority of the people responding thought that was impossible, so why even try! No, the responsible thing to do was to give them all the condoms they need! In that way we would be pro-active, preventing unwanted pregnancies and std's. Again the suggestion that both could be avoided with 100% certainty by abstinence was met with derisive laughter. The only way to help them is to give them condoms! My final comment on that thread of discussion was, that's not helping, that's called enabling! And I am disappointed that so many fail to see that at all. They are going to have sex anyway is the response, so why bother. Hey, people are going to speed too, why put up a sign!
 Another response that amused me somewhat was the theory that the kids would be embarrassed or ashamed to have to buy those condoms. They would have to go into a store where adults or people that knew them would see them. Why, that would just be awkward. I pointed out a simple fact, if you are ashamed or wish to hide something from others it's probably because you shouldn't be doing it. It's called guilt. Yup, that's the word for that, guilt. If you are not willing to do whatever it is with others having full knowledge of that action, you probably shouldn't be doing it and furthermore, you know it! That's why you are ashamed.
 Well, like I said I have a self imposed deadline and so must move on. Just wanted to leave this social observation for the day. I guess times change. When I was in high school, we boys worked up the courage to go in that drugstore and ask for a prophylactic, we knew that's what adults called a rubber. And yes, you had to ask as they were kept behind the counter. Then having secured that symbol of manhood we proudly displayed to the other guys. Yes, I have one, just in case. I was more likely to win the lottery, but I was ready! I would say the majority of the guys I knew carried that thing around in their wallets until it disintegrated. But I guess if the school had handed them out like candy, free for the taking things may have been different. Well may not be politically correct these days but I can say, shame and social stigma were strong deterrents in my day. That combined with the knowledge that you were going to be held accountable, 100% and without exception. We would hear, you know better and you made your bed, now sleep in it! And they weren't talking about sex.   

What is an American

 I had posted a comment saying how about we all just become Americans. I was somewhat amazed by the response. One in particular surprised me, although it really shouldn't have I suppose. This question was posed by an anonymous person, as are the majority as I don't know these people, what does an American look like? My immediate response was, an American doesn't look like anything, and that's kinda my point. I think this persons name was Ivan. The post I responded to had nothing to do with race, creed or color and that's what surprised me. Why did this Ivan person mention appearance? The post was in regard to Erase the Hate a group dedicated to inclusiveness. At least that is what the meme said. So, I went and checked that out. This group has been around since 1994 although it is the first time I had heard of it. After reading about it and then reading the question posed by Ivan I realized he was supporting Erase the Hate by hating. Ah, a ploy of the far left. Got it Ivan. We are to be inclusive as long as I change to suit you. Even when that means I have to change my appearance! Or, barring that, I must acknowledge that you are somehow inherently different than myself and deserving of special considerations or reparations. That's being inclusive.
 Now as I said the majority of the people we interact with on the internet are anonymous. We do have to take their word for whomever they claim to be. Just posting a picture isn't proof of who they are, nor reading a profile page. Hey, people have been known to lie about that stuff, even deliberately creating a page to disguise who they really are. Yeah, I know, hard to believe isn't it? Not! So right away this Ivan person decides I'm an old white guy that supports Trump and hates everyone that doesn't agree with me.
  How did he arrive at that? Guess he read my profile page or saw a picture of me. He didn't bother to ask any questions, no discussion, just jump to conclusions. I was amused because I was agreeing with him, basically saying if we want to be inclusive, we should start by all being Americans. He didn't understand the depth of that response. No, his reaction was, what does an American look like? Obvious to me that he just doesn't get it at all. I tried to explain that Americans don't look like anything, but all belong to a common society, we call that society America. A society shares common social conventions, religious practices, laws and traditions. In short, birds of a feather. Being inclusive means including others in your group, not changing the group to suit others! But alas that is too difficult a concept for some to understand. Those that fail to understand that jump to the conclusion if you are unwilling to change your group to suit them, you must hate them. It is that thinking that creates the division, the divisiveness that we are experiencing in America today. It is the old, who is going to run the club question? And the answer should be, Americans are running the club! That is what the founding fathers envisioned, what they structured as our government ( a republic ) and indeed what was written into the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. We the people. We Americans!
 The big question is who are Americans? Americans are those that do not equate their nationality with ethnicity. That's how I would put it. The question applies to all nations doesn't it? Who are Muslims? Ah, but that is a religion right? It's not a nation, yet they often refer to themselves as the Nation of Islam. Why is that? It is simply because they share that commonality. They are not concerned with geography, or a particular society ( nation ) their concern is their religious belief. I use that as an example to illustrate my thoughts. America is traditionally and predominately Christian, although other religions have always been tolerated and protected. That is inclusiveness. The Jews, the Muslims, the Druids, the Buddhists, or whatever have always been allowed to practice their religion within our borders. They are included in being an American. The constitution specifically says a persons religion shall never be used as a test of their citizenship or ability to run for political office. ( Article six, section three ) if you want to look that up. No where in any of our founding documents does it say what ethnicity you have to be to be a citizen. Fact is, all you have to do is be born here! And that is a debate raging today isn't it? And I would say, being born here doesn't make you an American, it makes you a legal citizen of the United States. Your choices and your actions will determine whether you are an American or not. Really it is the same thing as , because you are black that doesn't make you an African. Because my skin is white that don't make me anything but a white skinned person. Ethnicity has nothing to do with Nationality!
 And so I say, if you want to be inclusive, you need to join the club. You don't get to change the charter of that club. Our charter is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What are Americans? They are those that believe in what those documents said, and their continued validity in the modern world. Those are the documents of freedom. What does an American look like? If you have to ask that , you just don't understand the question.  

Old friends

 I opened my browser, it's like the card catalogue of the internet, and saw an interesting topic. It was an essay concerning an old friend of mine and probably an old friend of yours as well, Uncle Remus. You do remember Uncle Remus don't you? I admit to not having thought about any of those stories in quite some time. I don't believe I ever read any of them to my grandchildren either. They were like the little golden books to me, Dick and Jane and don't forget Spot. I'm certain I bought some little golden books for those grandkids though. Well, whatever the case I was surprised to learn that Uncle Remus is practically banned. Considered to be extremely racist and offensive, those books are not to be read to children. Yeah, they are " Politically Incorrect " no doubt about that. The way they were written, the dialogue and imagery, all of it politically incorrect.
 I began reading this essay, written by a Phd, concerning the content of those stories. This person was taking the view that the books, written in the post civil war era, were nothing more than plantation era stories and really a form of cultural appropriation. Those stories were stolen from slaves, written into the Uncle Remus collections and made very profitable. Uncle Remus was like Aunt Jemima, a racist stereotype used to hawk a product by the white man. This Doctor when on at some length about all of that. His major concern was the lasting impression these tales have had on children. I read that paper with some interest. Then, me being me, I had to give my opinion on the subject, if only to myself. I spent some time considering all of what he had written.
 Now I admit I was impressed with his choice of vocabulary, I had to look a few words up. He did make a reasoned argument about the true nature of those stories. But, and there is always a but, my first thought after reading all of that was, what kid thinks about that? Maybe it was because I was born in 1950's. When I was little I just listened to the story for the enjoyment of hearing the story. I never thought about whether Uncle Remus was a slave, of being oppressed , or any of the social implications connected with any of that. No, I just laughed at Briar Rabbit and his adventures. I didn't think of the Tar baby as anything but a doll made out of tar. The Tar Baby is especially offensive you know. Yeah I guess I can see that but I never associated the two meanings as a child, that is something I was taught by the " older " folks. So, in my thinking the fault lies not with Uncle Remus but with those explaining the story, like that PhD guy. It is my thought he was way overthinking the whole thing. Kids don't think about all that stuff when they are five years old. Does it effect them in the long term? I don't know, I'd say it didn't bother me a whole lot, as I said, I never really gave t a thought. They were just stories after all, works of fiction, no different than Popeye the sailor or Robin Hood. Uncle Remus wasn't a real person and everyone knows that rabbits really can't talk. As far as tar went, it is sticky stuff when it gets hot, anyone would know that as well so making a tar baby made sense. You see, that's how kids think, not equating that imagery with any social injustices in the world.
 Well whatever. No more Uncle Remus. The truth is he has been relegated to history as unacceptable. What a shame. I can't help but wonder if that is a good thing or a bad one. That's what adults do, not children. That's my thinking anyway. Children tend to learn what we teach them. If we start teaching them that Uncle Remus books are nothing more than a racist agenda to make a profit, that's what they will believe. If you don't want children to see or do something, tell them they can't. Human nature you know. Uncle Remus was a part of my childhood and that is were I have left it all these years. I also remember the story of little black Sambo. Many people mistakenly believe that little black sambo was an African-American. No, he was Indian, as in India. But, the book and the restaurant chain ( Sambo's ) have fallen from favor. Sambo's restaurant was named by combining the initials of the principal owners. Either they didn't realize that some would be offended or whether they didn't care, we don't know. But, we do know it also spelled ( no pun intended ) the end of the restaurant. No more Briar Rabbit either! Amazing isn't it? I'm so damaged.  

I remember

 I remember exactly where I was standing when I first heard the news. It was in the shipping department of Pulse Industries in Greensboro, Md. My wife called to tell me! The towers were ablaze. I vaguely remember being told that President Kennedy had been shot, I was in school. The teacher was crying just a little bit as we all said a prayer, and had a moment of silence. That was in November of 1963. I was ten years old. I remember seeing the President and his family on the television. I remember him saying, " ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country." I also remember him saying we would put a man on the moon. We did so on my birthday just six years after his death. And here we are 17 years after that fateful day when America was attacked. That is the way I will always remember that, as an attack. What else could you call it? I do think we should add the year, lest people forget. It was September the eleventh two thousand and one. That the date was on the eleventh is not lost to me. Remember WW1 ended on the 11th hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month. So, even though it was long before my time and I have no memory of anyone having served in that war from my family, the eleventh evokes those thoughts. Was it coincidence that the 11th was chosen by those terrorists? It could very well have been but seems unlikely to me. As much as I despise those that coordinated and planned that attack I'm as equally certain they were intelligent men aware of history. Indeed. history was the impetus for the attack!
 I also remember the battle cry, We will never forget, and the proliferation of the American Flag being flown proudly. Patriotism soared to new heights. There was an insurgence of men and women joining the armed forces. America had been attacked and America would respond to that attack. The world cried out, we are all Americans. And now 17 years later what is the rest of the world saying? I would say the world has forgotten, I would say many Americans have forgotten, I say, I will never forget. I have a banner that my wife's Uncle George kept and displayed in his window every year. It says, Remember Pearl Harbor. I wasn't alive then either but I remember. Uncle George never forgot and I am bound to carry his memory forward and with that memory his banner. What banner do we have for 9/11? Sadly I had to go look for that. I found there is a flag , first commissioned in New York, to be flown at the memorial. How could it be that I have never heard of this? Could it be that it has been forgotten, relegated to a tourist attraction? I'm certain those from NYC and the surrounding area are far more aware of all that than those in the other parts of the country. I can understand that. I can also understand how 17 years is a long time ago. I'm equally as certain the way it is written in the history books differs from my memory of it.
 Yes, today we all talk about inclusiveness, acceptance and not judging people. It's the same thing we have been saying for hundreds of years, nothing new about that. I can't but laugh when there are those that claim " enlightenment " while professing such concepts, like it is something they just discovered. I answer them with a line from a Dwight Yoakum song, " how's it feel now that you're the one it's happening to" Their reactions are quite different from their rhetoric, when it does effect them directly. But I will never forget, I will never let my guard down. It may be politically incorrect and all that, but I will view those claiming loyalty to Islam with suspicion. I do so the same way I watch a bee, I'll leave it alone, all the while realizing it might sting me. I will not forget what it is capable of. I remember not to hate, I remember to be prepared. I don't remember to honor the memories of those that lost their lives. they have family, friends, relatives and co-workers that will do that. No, I remember to preserve myself and those that I love. I remember to never let my guard down. Not in fear, but in awareness. I will never forget.

This is the flag. Have you seen it before? I went to the memorial when it was under construction and don't recall seeing this. It is my feeling we should fly it every 9/11 

             

Repeating the thought

First posted August of 2014 I thought it was time to repost.
I'm certain it will be new to most of you. If any of you remember,
I'm impressed.

Faith requires no explanation.

When I got home from work there was a question posted to my timeline. What do you think of the stars in the sky ? There were a few responses some funny, some not. My immediate response was, " just fragments of the whole,and if I can be so awed by a fragment how much more so by the whole." That answer came without thought. Or I should say it came to me as a completed thought. That happens occasionally. It has caused me to think, after the fact. Most of the time that is not a good thing. Acting or speaking without forethought is a slippery slope. It is something I have tried to curb as the years pass. Some would say it is maturity, others wisdom. Whatever it is, I know it has taken some time for me to realize the value of that lesson.
In thinking about what I responded it occurred to me that I might expatiate upon that topic. The stars are merely fragments of the whole. Secular science teaches that the universe was formed by a big bang. The moment of singularity,that instant before expansion, is the whole. The stars, and indeed everything else in the universe are just fragments of that whole. It is defining that whole that is at the core of man's curiosity. No matter what answer man searches for the explanation would have to begin there. Fragments of the whole are still a part of the whole. Time and distance separates them. Isn't that what Einstein, Hawking and Sagan all explored. It is that relationship that will provide the solution.
In the spiritual world man attempts to explain the whole. Most religions accomplish this in terms a man can understand. A creator fashioned the universe. The creator is the singularity. That is the key to religion, to faith. Secular science claims to explain the formation of the universe but does not attempt to explain the singular. Fragments are easily identified as pieces of the whole. It is the whole that must be defined. Scientists have studied the stars for centuries. We marvel at there very existence. The stars appear to us to be fixed points in the sky but they are not. The stars rotate around the center of the galaxy. The stars rotate around that moment of singularity, around I say, the creator.
    Amos 5:8 - [Seek him] that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD [is] his name:
This is, of course, from the Bible. The advice ? Seek that moment of singularity. Is that not what it says ? Seems clear enough to me. Scientists and astronomers are attempting to do just that. Even those that profess to be atheists, anti theists or agnostics are searching for that entity. They may deny that in their secular scientific methods but there is no escaping the truth. Can man understand creation ? No more than than man can understand the stars. Man has subconsciously always sought to be one with the universe. Over the centuries and throughout every culture that theme can be found. Mother earth, the druids and others all felt the kinship to the universe. We are all fragments of that creation. We are all fragments of the creator.
And so with that statement, " just fragments of the whole,and if I can be so awed by a fragment how much more so by the whole "  I acknowledged the creator. Awe indeed.
 Hebrews 11:6 - But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
There it is, written in scripture for anyone to read. Faith is the key. And faith requires no explanation. The very existence of a star reaffirms my faith. For as long as a single fragment exists, all is possible. I see the stars in the sky as possibilities. Awe Inspiring Indeed !