context and common sense

 The hot topic at the moment is birthright citizenship. President Trump says it needs to end and I agree wholeheartedly. What a lot of those protesting this don't understand is it is not a constitutional guarantee to those that are not citizens of the United States in the first place. If one just reads the 14th amendment ( 1866 ) and uses common sense, that becomes obvious enough. Yes, we do have to read things in the context that they were written. The very first sentence says it applies to those within the jurisdiction of the United States or the state in which they reside. Illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and do not reside in any state. That seems clear enough to me for anyone to understand. Of course you have all these legal scholars that wish to interpret that differently. Well, because that is what lawyers do. They don't argue cases based on common sense, or the intent of the legislation, they argue to win their case. They even take an oath to defend guilty people and try their best to get them off! It's their job. In this case, birthright citizenship, it has never been decided upon by the supreme court. It's time it was settled, once and for all.
 I think it is plain enough. If I sneak into your home does that make me a part of your family? Does that give me " rights? " If I give birth to a child after I sneak into your house, are you now obligated to raise that child? Are you obligated to feed, clothe, shelter and provide medical care and an education to that baby? That's what some are saying is the obligation if an illegal sneaks into the country and gives birth. I say, render aid during the birthing process, but that's it. Back to wherever you came from until the proper paperwork is done for you to legally immigrate. You don't get to just smash and grab! Birthright citizenship applies in the country that you are a citizen! That should be obvious.
 The Supreme court did rule that a child born abroad, to U.S.Citizens, is a citizen by birthright. Yes, the parents have to be citizens. Some countries will grant dual citizenship but that is not the issue. The fact remains at least one parent must be a U.S. Citizen. If you recall the fuss about Obama's birth certificate you should be aware of this. The accusation was that he was foreign born of non U.S. Citizens. That would have disqualified him from the office of President. His legal team argued that he was born in Hawaii and has birthright citizenship. A birth certificate was eventually produced and the matter settled legally, if not in the minds of many people. Whatever the case is, the Supreme court hasn't ruled one way or the other. Fact is, the Supreme Court can only issue an opinion on the matter. It is up to Congress to make the final decision, and the Congress is the people. So I say place it on the ballot.
 Trump is not calling for a repeal of the 14th amendment. That isn't what he's saying, regardless of how the media reports it. What Trump is saying is that birthright citizenship should only apply to CITIZENS of this country. I'd say once the child is conceived it is a citizen of the United States. I'd say that child should receive the full protection of the Constitution of this great country. But that isn't being done, no, because there are some insisting it's their choice to abridge those rights, specifically the right to life! These same folks are now protesting, in an outrage because a child being born on foreign soil ( it's foreign to them ) isn't going to be granted all the protections of the same constitution they are denying to natural born citizens! Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
 The 14th amendment to the constitution was written to affirm that former Slaves and indeed all African-Americans were full citizens of this country. That is what was required in 1866 because a certain political party was denying that reality. Yes, the same party that is now claiming we must give birthright citizenship to illegals were the ones denying that slaves and African-Americans weren't even humans. That is a portion of why the 14th amendment was necessary. Yes, context is very important to the discussion, very important indeed.
    

for reward?

 Is reward a requirement of faith? That is to say, does God exist solely to give reward. Is that the reason we should follow his laws? It is the promise, is it not? Those who believe in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life. A failure to believe places you where? Let's just say in an unpleasant situation, for eternity. That would seem the long and short of it. Is it also the reason we are called the children of God? Children respond to a reward system. Reward is the incentive for them to learn and grow as individuals. Ironically, as we raise our children we stress upon them that doing the right thing should be done for one reason, because it is right, not for reward. That is the lesson when it comes to ethics and morality. Other behaviors you do in compliance with the law. 

 These thoughts come to me in response to the things happening around me. It is not a questioning of God, just a questioning of motives. The motives of people and the motive of God. It's the age old question, why do bad things happen to good people? The question is, who's to blame. We want to know who's to blame because that is the person that will have the reward withheld. Whether that reward is a piece of cake or eternal life, it is the withholding of reward that concerns us. Why did that man shoot those people in the synagogue? Who's to blame for that, and who will ultimately have the reward withheld? The innocents are the victims, so why did this happen to them? Why are so many people being " punished " for the actions of one? That is the way many view it, as a punishment. To those of us suffering the aftermath of that madman's rage, we demand to know who's to blame! We demand an accounting.
 For the Christian or the Jew, or the Muslim, and I suspect for every other religious order the consequence of his actions will land him in hell, or their version of that. But, that isn't enough is it? No, and it isn't enough because there is no reward in it for us. We receive no justice, no equitable solution. His eternal damnation will not restore us. Why do we have to suffer for his sin? Why does God allow this to happen? I think the answer is a simple one. God doesn't interfere in mans' choices, that is what free will is all about. God doesn't choose to have people act in this manner, and God doesn't stop people from acting in that manner. It is in that, that the question arises; is reward a requirement of faith? Should we believe only when rewarded? Should you only do right when someone is watching? Is it only the fear of getting caught that guides us?
 We are taught that God makes the final judgement. We often delude ourselves, justifying our own actions as righteous, and therefore forgiven by God. In that way we reassure ourselves that we will  receive the reward. As long as we repent of our sins, and confess them before God, we will be forgiven. That is hope, not faith. Faith is believing it. So what is hope? Hope is a desire and an expectation, not a certainty. That is what is being expressed in 1 Corinthians chapter 13, " and now these three remain, faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love. "  The greatest is love because the other virtues hinge upon it. Without love, the others do not exist. It is love that instills hope into the child. It is love that sustains faith. Reward is the result. Without love, there is no reward. The love of God that surpasses all understanding. We can't know the motive of a madman.  We can know the motive of God, and that motive, is love.               

Indifference

 Charles Caleb Colton said, " there are three modes of bearing the ills of life, by indifference, by philosophy, and by religion. " It is the first that has been on my mind lately. Indifference. It is indifference that is being promoted by the far left. That indifference is best summed up with a single sentiment, mind your own business. By minding your own business you keep all your opinions to yourself. It's like putting a lock on knowledge. It is only by sharing our thoughts that we can reach common ground. Remaining indifferent to behaviors we feel are inconsistent or detrimental to our communities will not bring us together. No, it will only keep us part. Indifference is an individual thing, as is philosophy and religion. The thing is, we can agree on a common philosophy, or religion, but there is no common indifference! And that is the very reason we must not become indifferent to the ills of the world. 

 What is indifference? The dictionary says it is a lack of concern, interest or sympathy. I would say it is setting those things aside. Being indifferent to those things is just remaining silent about them. But that is becoming a problem in today's world. We are assigning meanings to words that don't belong with that word. Yes, to remain indifferent is to not care. That's what most of us mean when we say that. Charles C Colton saw indifference for what it is, a coping mechanism. He called it a mode of bearing ills because I guess that's the way they talked back then. The meaning is clear however, to remain indifferent is to remain uninvolved, just allowing everyone to do their own thing. 

 I place the promotion of that on the far left because that is what they would have others do, turn a blind eye and remain unconcerned and uninterested. There is no discussion of philosophy or religion. The narrative in that regard is silent. Philosophy is the guiding principle that drives a persons actions. Is there one correct philosophy? No you can't say that there is. That is the reason we don't need to discuss philosophical points isn't it? You can't tell me what philosophy I should follow. And when it comes to religion, the same applies. For that reason an individual can dismiss both as irrelevant and place them in the category of indifference. That individual can now insist others just mind their own business. 

 The problem lies in that a community, a society or a nation are not individuals. It is something I have written about in the past and no doubt will continue to discuss. You hear the politicians rant and rave about it all the time, solemn music playing in the background, soft, sincere narration about country and unity. Vote for me. Then there is the great divide, more evident today than ever in our history. The basis for the divide? Race and Religion? No, not really, although they are the most common excuses. Philosophy is the culprit. It is philosophy that drives men to action. Philosophy combined with the quest for wealth. Many will sacrifice philosophy for a dollar. That defines character. Indifference to your philosophy and religion. The justification for such? Just remain indifferent, there is no justification. 

 It is my thinking if we just set aside religion and race for a little while, we could reach common ground. What is the philosophy of our nation? Define that and we have a beginning. It is my belief that philosophy was elegantly written and stated in our founding documents. We can't continue to remain indifferent to those principles. Quit being so upset and offended by the obvious. Quit all this name calling and finger pointing. Accept history for what it was, not for what you wish it could have been. And quit using the injustices of the past as an excuse for injustice today. Do not become indifferent to the present with hopes for the future.  

a bar too high?

 I don't know a whole lot about Charles Caleb Colton. I have stumbled upon several quotes of his over the years and found them insightful. I read just a small biography of him, very small, that says he was well known for his eccentric behavior. Interestingly no mention of what those behaviors were. I haven't pursued that any further. I'm not really that interested in that portion of his life, I just like his writings, at least what I have read so far anyway. Yes, I have found it possible to admire people that have flaws. That's assuming being eccentric is a flaw. We do tend to think of it that way. Well, being eccentric is being different, and we don't like different do we? Well, sometimes we do, sometimes we crave something different. But if you like it, it is no longer eccentric. Another one of those paradoxes we all face, but few see.

 Yesterday I ran across another passage written by Charles Caleb Colton. I posted it to Facebook saying how it could also relate to some Facebook postings I read by others. " Many books require no thought from those who read them, and for a very simple reason, they made no such demand upon those who wrote them. " I immediately understood that sentiment. Such a concise statement of fact.      I couldn't help but think how some of my writings required little to no thought, and others I expended a great deal of thought composing. My most popular writings? The ones that are just little stories or remembrances, not requiring much thought to put to paper. Others I have written  require thought from the reader to arrive at a conclusion. Personally I prefer the later ones. 

 I have spoken about writing a book. It is something I have started, stopped and started again a few times. The difficulty lies in deciding just what the story is. Now having read Charles C Coltons' statement about books requiring no thought from the author I gained another perspective. Am I writing this book to entertain, or to inform? Is that what I have been missing? I don't believe there is much about my life that is entertaining, certainly not an entire books worth. My life would have to be the backstory however, to provide context. That leaves me with providing insight, to generate thought from the reader. But why should anyone entertain what I have to say?  I'm not famous, or highly " educated " by the standards of academia. I know this, I don't want to simply repeat what others have said, or what I have been taught to say. I want to present what I have learned. The challenge lies in saying that in a way you haven't heard it before. Isn't that the job of an author? 

 I think the writing of a book comes with expectations. The first expectation is a simple one, that people will read it. It is that expectation that determines the type of book written. Should I write to entertain or write to inform. To inform is nothing more than to present information, although we often think of it differently. We often think to be informed is just to be told facts that we should immediately believe and adopt. I make an effort to not do that but to take in the information provided, compare it against my own, and decide from there. Not all information is fact. Perception and opinion, regardless of fact, often chooses the path we take. That's the human condition. The second expectation is success. If you don't believe you will be successful, why write it in the first place? I think that is part of my problem. I haven't determined what success to expect. Or I haven't decided to settle for the "success" I do expect. What I have written so far is a sort of self help book. The only one it has helped is myself! Isn't that the purpose of a self help book though? If I write to help you then wouldn't that be an instruction manual? 

 Someone said, " if you want to know what you believe, write. " I have found that to be quite true, although not always pleasant. It is a great way to organize your thoughts though. Maybe that's true for me because my thoughts have always been random. Focus Grasshopper, Focus. I do believe what I want to write is something that requires the reader to think. That has always been the best part of a book for me. Yes, I've read a good number of novels by Stephen King and Louis L 'Amour solely to be entertained. None of them required much thought from me to understand the story. King just uses his imagination and L'Amour used a lot of research to set his novels up. Popular authors, you bet they are. More recently J.K. Rowling has enjoyed great success. I admit to not having read or seen a single Harry Potter book or movie. Something about wizards. Apparently quite entertaining. An amusement. I don't want to settle for amusing. See, I learned something just by writing it down. Amusing is such a transient state. I'm hoping for something a bit more permanent, enduring even. A bar set too high?      

the last game

 My grandson played his last official soccer game last night. I remember when he began as a little boy and watched him progress through the ranks. As a senior this was his last year. Another milestone has been reached. He has no intention of playing in college, perhaps continuing his officiating role, but not as a player. He is a certified official and has been doing that alongside his playing. I would like to see him continue in that pursuit. Yes I feel a bit of sadness for the whole deal, it's that sadness Grandparents understand so well having experienced those feelings before. You want to see them grow, spread their wings and fly, but you really don't want them to leave the nest. Time waits for no man the saying goes and it becomes ever more evident every day. I am reminded of the first time he rode his bicycle from his home to mine, by himself, unescorted and unsupervised. I could see the pride, the excitement of that freedom was evident in his eyes. It appeared once again when he got that drivers license. Milestones indeed. First dates, dances and heartbreaks, I have seen them all. Oh yeah, I am thinking about Mark, my grandson and somehow feel sorry for myself. 

 I'm going to try to put together a collage of pictures from his soccer career. I have hundreds to choose from. He has trophy's and medals galore. He was on teams that won championships and teams that got the participation awards. Most of his career he played goal keeper but changed to defender in his senior year. I saw him play baseball and lacrosse. Neither of those sports stirred a passion in him. No, its' been soccer. And Grandpa didn't know squat about soccer, now I know slightly more than that but far from being an expert. Never did get that offside call right. Well, no matter I always claimed the official made the wrong call when it went against my grandson, and the right one when it favored us. And now it's time to put the stadium seats in the attic, pack the sports blankets away and just remember. We had some exciting games and some heartbreakers. But Mark remained #21 his whole career. Well at least through his high school career he was able to retain that number. #21, Mark the shark we called him. This year his teammates took to calling him Pop-Pop, he says because of his beard. Whatever he was called he was #21. If I had my way the number would be retired! But it could be I am just a bit biased, it's a possibility.   

Modern living

 Does anyone remember having a prop stick by the window? You know, that stick you put in the window to hold it open because the cord on the window weight had broken. What's that you say, what's a window weight? Well, I was thinking about such things last evening as I lay in bed. We still sleep with the windows open, but they stay up all by themselves thanks to modern manufacturing techniques. I suspect thanks to air conditioning many people rarely open their windows. That led me to think I wonder how many folks have a door stop anymore? My Mom had a cast iron cat for that purpose and it was used often. I guess nowadays along with the air conditioning running you have to worry about home invasion as well, so no propping the front door open. Our front door was always open, even in winter. Of course we had one of those aluminum storm doors, and yes it had an initial in the center. It wasn't our initial though, Dad had gotten that door used and it had the original owners initial. Didn't need the door stop when the glass was in that door, but spring/summer when the screens were in, the doorstop was necessary.
 That is just a couple things I remember from my childhood that you don't see much anymore. I can't say when the last time I saw a television on a swivel base was either. Televisions with an actual picture tube are getting to be a bit of a curiosity as well. Antennas are still being used somewhat, just rarely mounted to the roof or on a separate tower alongside the house. Put one of those up today and the neighbors are going to be suspicious. I do remember turning the channel by twisting that knob, click, click. Dad yelling, don't turn it that fast, you want to break it! Yes, I was the remote and the butler. Bring that hassock closer. Does anyone call them a hassock anymore? Or are they ottomans these days? You could use a footstool but they aren't as comfy. And Dad always had his ashtray alongside his chair. I'm certain you remember those. They were on a pedestal, usually brown glass in a silver colored holder. A handle with fancy looking scrollwork bridged that receptacle. Well, I remember when ashtrays could be found everywhere, even in the waiting rooms at the Doctors office or Hospitals. Have you noticed cars don't have ash trays anymore, or lighters? Now all that is there is a power port. Expensive cars even had ashtrays in the backseat, with lighters. Did you know they were really listed as a cigar lighter. Yup, that's the real name for them and the reason for their size. Funny how stuff works out isn't it? The standard size of a cigar is the standard size for all power ports. Guess cigars and power still go together. Only the power has changed.
 I continued to think about this and wondered how many folks would have wooden kitchen matches. Grandma always had a box of them close by the stove. My mom always had a box but they were in the junk drawer. They were there just in case the stove pilot went out, or you lost power and needed to light a candle. Yes, mom kept candles for just that reason as well. We had ice trays with pull handles on them. They were those aluminum ones, you know the type well, amazing those plastic twist ones don't break, modern technology. The can opener was manual and we had several " church keys " around. Remember when you got those free? The fancy ones had a magnet on them, a great idea. All those things we just took for granted, normal everyday things. A sprinkler bottle  and a black metal lunch box. Dad called his a lunch bucket! That is what he carried a small child and so the name stuck, how many of you call the refrigerator an ice box? I find I still do that every now and again. It's like " taping " something when we don't use tape anymore. We create a digital file these days, if you're up on the proper terminology. My camera will tell me to raise the flash but I still haven't found where the flash bulb goes. The cube with four flashes sure was a technological marvel. Does anyone else remember wetting the end of the flash bulb before putting it in the camera? Ah, the good old days. Mom did have an electric hand mixer but she had the old hand crank one as a backup too. We kids liked using that one. Grandma's washing machine had a wringer on it but she seldom used that machine, preferring to do them by hand, on a scrub board. Anyone here have a scrub board used for anything other than decoration? How about a rug beater or a boot jack. How about clothespins?  Well, progress is being made, or so I'm told. Just keep the doors and windows locked, make sure your identity isn't being stolen and record everything in case of lawsuits. 

what remains?

 In considering the miracle that is life, and when it begins, I have more questions that answers. I say that because answers are verifiable facts, proven by scientific methods, or universally accepted as truth. Faith plays no role in fact. The only fact associated with faith is whether you believe or not, and even then only you know the true answer. That's far from a universal acceptance. But what I was thinking about was the infusion of life itself. Is life just the result of chemical and biological reactions? Science shows that, but that explanation isn't universally accepted as truth. There is more to life than that, that portion of life we call the soul. It's universally accepted that we all have one, it's the source of that soul that is in dispute. Divine intervention ? I think it safe to say the majority of the people in the world would agree that is so. Yes there are those that deny the existence of any divine source. The reasons for their denial are as varied as the individual. I think, for many, because that denial has no immediate or verifiable consequences it is easily dismissed. The acceptance of a divine presence requires an obedience to that presence, an inconvenience. I would agree that coming to terms with that presence can be a struggle. The acceptance of a higher power isn't an easy thing for many of us. Placing ourselves in a subservient role is not something to be desired, is it? It is, if you believe that it will lead to the continuation of life, specifically your life. Isn't that the prize being dangled before us? Yes I'd say it was. It is an unfortunate reality that the majority of us will not do something without the promise of reward. For the Christian, Jesus is our example. What was his reward for doing the will of God? He was killed. From that example we started calling folks martyrs that endured punishment and death for their beliefs. The word martyr comes from the Arabic word for witness. Maybe that is why there were more martyrs in ancient times. An extreme example of subservience perhaps but a very powerful one no doubt. It has left a lasting impression upon millions for over two thousand years! And we are taught Jesus went to sit at the right hand of the father. The first part is verifiable by historic accounts, and the later by faith alone. Jesus lives does he not? He does to those that believe.
 I wandered off track a bit with all of that. I was thinking about life and its' beginning. I believe that our soul is a piece of energy infused into our body by divine providence. I happen to be a Christian and so that is my faith. I believe that others, not of my religious persuasion, receive that same energy. What, or who they believe does the infusing I am not concerned with. I am concerned with their acceptance of a greater power than themselves. The soul is also what we call our conscience. I don't believe you can separate the two. It is true that our conscience is influenced by the society in which we live. That's the sole reason some behaviors are acceptable in one and not in another. But what is being judged is your reaction to the behavior of others, not whether that behavior is good or bad. Is that reaction acceptable? But we are given free will. And free will is the ability to override conscience. How much do you listen to that inner voice? Or are you more concerned with hearing acceptance from the external forces in your life? In that is the basis of faith. It is also the basis for life itself.
 The question remains for me, is this infusion of life, the soul, unique to each individual? That is to say, if I hadn't been born would someone else have received my soul? Where does that soul go upon death? Is it recycled? I believe it has to be because energy can neither be created nor destroyed, energy is eternal. God is eternal, life is eternal. The bigger question, the one we all want the answer to is, will our conscience remain? That is to say, will we know that we died? If we do, we are still alive aren't we? Does that depend upon obedience to a higher power? For me, it does. I believe each of us are unique in the universe and that stems from the infusion of life, a gift from the creator. What we do with that gift is solely our choice. That's because that's what a true gift is, given freely without expectation of return.    

paying up

 Well it's another morning and I'm still not wealthy. Didn't win the mega-millions, had one number. Ah, but I have a powerball ticket and hope springs eternal. I don't buy these tickets all the time, just when the mood strikes. Amazing to think that just since July 1.6 billion dollars became available to give away. How much money was taken in? And that isn't counting all the other lotteries that are out there. Yet we don't have money for schools and epi-pens. Priorities I suppose. Entertainment has always occupied the top spot hasn't it? Let's not forget it was entertainment that was the go to for the Roman empire when things started to collapse. Just keep the people distracted. Not much has changed over the centuries. There are quite a few in the Senate today that would stab Trump to death if they figured they could get away with it. You know, Rome was a Republic as well. That got changed however when the people got distracted enough. But that is all political discussion and I was thinking about money. Yesterday, before the big drawing the man on television was explaining how you would need to hire an attorney, a tax man and a financial investment firm! I can see the lawyer and the tax man, but I don't believe I would be a bit concerned with investing any of that money. A bird in the hand is my thinking. I also believe if those investment guys are so smart why are they working? Their smarts involve getting you to give them money. In return, they give you advice.
 It's fine, I hadn't made any big plans, just amused myself for a while with dreams of grandeur. Yes, it would be nice to have the ability to just write a check every time a bill came in, or you wanted something. That, to me, would be real wealth. Wealth involves no concern about money whatsoever. That's why I wouldn't be concerned with investing. If I did that I would then have to be concerned with my investments making a profit or not. I don't need that worry, thanks anyway. No, I don't think I would want that spoiling the fun. I don't want wealth to show it off to other people, I want wealth for myself, for my wants and needs. Selfish, you bet. I'm not going to try to convince others of anything different, I get rich, it's mine! I'm getting the things I want and doing the things I want to do. And that, that is the dream. No worries about money at all. That's wealth.
 As far as doing good for others you don't need money for that. I know its' cliché but it is the truth. There is plenty to do that costs nothing. Having money to give away sure makes it a lot easier though, not much personal effort required. That type of thing will get you noticed, that's for sure. You may even receive awards. Not that it matters much, if you are making significant contributions to help others, I really am not concerned with your motivations. You want recognition and awards? Just keep that money coming baby! I'm thinking I would be one to contribute. If I wanted to volunteer I would be doing that already. I've got the time, that much is certain. Those monetary contributions would be what I am willing to do. At the present time I am not willing to donate my time and that's why I don't. I am not interested in receiving accolades or praise and not motivated to do it " for myself. " It's easy to talk about such stuff abstractly, quite different than the reality. The reality is I don't have money to give away, and I don't feel like I have time to give away either. What's that saying? Either lead, follow or get out of the way. Presently I'm content with just getting out of the way. When my situation changes I will change along with it.  Wealth? Ah, it's fun to dream as long as you remember what it is. Two dollars is cheap entertainment and that's what I'm paying for, to entertain a dream.
            

Social accountabilty

 I first saw it on social media and now I've seen it on the evening news. towns creating legislation about trick or treating. Fines will be levied and people possibly detained. I admit at first I didn't believe the reports and though they were exaggerated. As it turns out they are not, this is a reality here in America. I can't help but question why? Why is this necessary? What has happened since I was a young man that made legislation necessary? No one had to tell me when I was too old to trick or treat, let alone make a law about it. I don't recall there even being a set time for that activity. Common sense and decency ruled the day. But now something has happened to make this a necessity? I have to believe that such laws or regulations were precipitated by something. I mean. the town board, or whatever, doesn't just decide out of the blue that we need to establish age limits on trick or treating.
 I don't remember when I first heard about the time thing. I only recall the town saying trick or treating will be from 6 to 8. I don't believe any punishment was ever imposed for violating that. When I was small we just waited until dark and went until we were tired, or folks turned out the lights. That's how I remember it anyway. Well, I think Mom and Dad decided when I had enough when I was really little. I always had more than enough. Apparently things have changed somewhat, or is it that the children have changed? Children have learned behaviors so what are the parents teaching the children? That for me, is the question to be answered in all of this. I was taught to knock on the door, say trick or treat and thank you. That was the protocol to be followed. Trick or treating wasn't a license to be rude or greedy. Despite all the tales of mischief I like to tell, we really didn't do all that much. Yes shaving cream and bars of soap were involved. But that was done by those too old to trick or treat. Parents, for the most part, had no knowledge that their kids were doing it, it was always someone else's kids. No damage was done so, it was overlooked.
 Setting all that aside I do wonder why it became necessary to tell, no not tell, make it illegal for children over the age of twelve to go trick or treating? By the time I was twelve there was no way I was putting on any costume and going out in public! Are you serious? And we all knew, no costume, no knocking on doors and trick or treating. No, I didn't need anyone to tell me about any of that, anymore than I needed awareness training. I was well aware I should act a bit more mature than that, that stuff is for kids. Of course, that was before we were told that everything should go our way. It was before the world was expected to change to suit my wants and needs. I knew that trick or treating was a holiday for begging. It was all very cute, dressing up and pretending you would trick people if they didn't give you candy. All the while we knew that charity was extended in the spirit of the holiday and you didn't demand charity. Today there are an awful lot of folks believing that charity is some sort of government guarantee. There is no shame in charity, either asking or receiving it! Maybe that is why no costume is necessary. Maybe that is why your age doesn't matter anymore. There is no social accountability, only legal consequence. Isn't that the message being sent? Definitely a different attitude than the one I was taught.
 Yeah I know we have to be tolerant and accepting of others. I also know that " social accountability " played an important role when I was growing up. Today some say that it is bullying and some of it is, but it played a role. I didn't want to be teased for dressing up as a cute little ghost or something on Halloween when I was twelve or older. That is what I call social accountability. You can call it peer pressure or whatever, but it was definitely a influencing factor in my development. It was the same reason you didn't go running your mouth, you would get corrected, and quickly. The other kids with you might have thought you were " cool " but your parents and any adult in earshot might very well intervene. You were aware of that possibility and there was no recourse, unlike today where your parents will sue someone. No, in my day parents would thank the other person for correcting their children's behavior, apologize to them, and further corrective action would be taken. That is social accountability. Didn't need legislation for that.
 Our parents were the wardens and every adult in town the corrections officers. Infractions would be reported to the warden immediately. And for that reason I ask, where are the parents? If you have to make legislation preventing teenagers from trick or treating what is that saying about the parents? Seems to me their parents should have taught them enough self respect and common courtesy to know better. Instead these teenagers are set loose like a bunch of marauding thugs? What happened? What has changed? Morals, ethics and common sense thrown by the wayside. If it isn't against the law I can do that! If you don't agree with me I will riot, pass out ribbons and set fire to the neighborhood. I have " rights " and can do whatever I like. You don't like it, I'll throw a tantrum. If there isn't a law, in writing, saying I can't do it, I will sue you as well. The only accountability I have is to the law. I have no social accountability whatsoever. Try holding me to that and I will call you a bigot, a racist, and any number of undesirable adjectives. You are just intolerant and oppressive. Social accountability? No, that's just an old fashioned notion. Quit being a bully.

Mob rule?

 This is one of those rare mornings when I don't have much to say. It has turned a little chilly and I'm distracted by that. There is no big outrage occurring at the moment and that is an amazing thing. Well I guess I shouldn't be so amazed, the current concern is from the more conservative members of our society. Conservatives tend to decide upon a course of action and implement that without riots, parades or ribbons! Our southern border is being threatened with an invasion and we conservatives know what to do. We will close the border! We have every right to do so, being a sovereign nation. Yes, that's correct, we have an absolute right to protect and control our borders. You see, a conservative view. It's just the fact of the matter. There isn't much more to do about that at the moment.
 I do get a sense that something is going to happen. Call it the calm before the storm. It's quiet, too quiet, as they say in the movies. The mid-terms are coming up fast, and early voting has begun. I'm hoping for a large turn-out. I'm hoping for that turn-out not to elect my party of choice, but rather to wake some folks up to reality. I do believe the majority of the population has common sense and can make common sense decisions. The ballot box does afford us that anonymity to cast our ballot in that way. My thinking is there are many that just don't want to openly support the conservative view, it's not the popular choice at the moment. A great deal of that has to do with the media. Common sense isn't very sensational you know? The media deals in the sensational, the outrageous and the selling of a product. The media is a business folks, not a source of information. They gave up on that a long time ago. Once the television networks found out they could increase their ratings with Jerry Springer and Geraldo, it was all downhill from there.
 Well, that's about all I have to say this morning. It's a lot to think about though. The situation on the border is going to be a big mess, no doubt about that. I'm hoping there isn't a big clash and lives are lost. Still when you have thousands of people determined to do something what else can you expect. The proverbial line in the sand has to be drawn! We can't allow caravans of people to just march into our country and make demands. I wonder though, just who is feeding and providing this caravan with supplies? I'm not buying that you are a refugee or asylum seeker marching 2600 or more miles without any assistance. If you had nothing in your country, and that's why you left, where did you get what you have? You carried over sixty days work of supplies from Honduras to the southern border of the United States? Sorry, not buying that at all.
 Guess that is what is on my mind after all. I do feel nervous about it. This ain't going to be good folks, but it is something that will have to be done. Do it now, or it will continue. It has been growing over the years. As Barney Fife would say, nip it, you have to nip it in the bud. I'm thinking it is a bit more than a bud now but not too late to cut it off. That isn't a caravan, it's a mob,  no different than a bunch of vigilantes. Law and order must be upheld and upheld now. We can't allow the mob to rule.  

Blockheads

 I haven't done a lot of research or reading about this so called migrant caravan heading for our southern border. I do find it a bit coincidental that its' timing matches the mid-term elections. I understand this had to had been begun a while ago. Is this a coordinated effort from some nefarious sources? That I find difficult to believe, at least in its' initial phase. Has support been given along the way? Sure looks that way to me. From the little I have read a great number of these migrants come from Honduras. I admit geography isn't my strongest subject but Honduras is south of Mexico. Mexico did nothing when they hit the southern border of their nation. Mexico has allowed that caravan to move across their country, unmolested and unconcerned? Well, at least they were unconcerned until Trump said he will close our border. If that is done , then those migrants will have to stay in Mexico or turn around and return from whence they came. Strange, Mexico isn't offering reassurance to these migrants, offering food, shelter, free medical care, or much of anything. I guess the country of Mexico is just a bunch of racists! I saw a small piece on the evening news where the Mexican police were even clashing with these " poor helpless migrants " using tear gas, batons and physical force to stop them! Oh, the humanity.
 If I sound less than convinced of the innocent nature of a migrant caravan it's because I am. You expect me to believe that these folks, numbering in the thousands, just banded together to walk hundreds of miles, across foreign nations, to escape their own government. Why aren't those folks, numbering in the thousands, just overthrowing their own government? The media would have me believe this caravan is just women and children with a few old men straggling along. Okay, where are the men? Where are the thousands of fighting age men and women? Are they all just cowards? Are they all just running in fear? And why are they running to America?  Could it be because they have all been told that America is where all the free stuff is? Could that possibly be the case? Could it be that they have been told the time is right for an invasion? Could it be that they have been convinced that if they crash the border, en masse, it would be like a smash and grab at the Walmart? Everyone gets something for nothing and no accountability for anything? No, its' just that thousands of people all decided to head for America at the same time.
 Now as far all these folks in America supporting this tactic, saying we must give humanitarian aid, I ask, why not any other country? Why isn't Mexico doing something? Why isn't any European nation doing anything? ( because it ain't their continent is my guess ) the United Nations has remained silent. No other government in the entire world has done a thing about these supposed criminal acts by the government of Honduras or others? No intervention on the behalf of human rights? Yeah, but the UN demands the United States stop using fossil fuels because that is a pressing issue requiring immediate intervention. Meanwhile thousands of women, dragging new borns' and infants thousands of miles across the desert isn't an issue. They are escaping oppression, rape and all manner of atrocities but that's not a problem? Well, what can you do the government of Honduras is run by a bunch of thugs. You can't beat thugs. But we can legalize pot in the United States, that will reduce their cash flow, that'll teach them a lesson. Well, unless they just start selling Cocaine, oh wait, they already do. Whatever, we can't beat a bunch of thugs. We'll just have to let them all in our country, where we can keep a closer eye on them. We can make them all dependent upon the government ( our government ) and then we can control them for another 150 years or so. Wait a minute, wait a minute; that plans sounds familiar. Well those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What a bunch of blockheads! Good Grief Charlie Brown, how can so many people in this country be this stupid?    

Wondering

  We are nothing more than a fragment of ethereal energy acting upon our current reality. We control that reality, although place the blame on others. We do so because it is the others that judge us. When our reality does not match the reality of the majority, we are considered neurotic. Could it be that reality is imposed upon us? Could it be that reality is a learned thing? Ah, that is the stuff the psychologists like to talk about. That is the stuff they are " qualified " to determine. Or, are they? What knowledge do they have to determine such? They only have what is being taught by others as reality.
 We are ethereal energy. The fragility of human life is well known. We are all well aware of our mortality yet often ignore that reality altogether. We do so saying we are going to " live our lives. " What does that mean? It means we intend to do the things that please us. We intend to expend our energy in a manner that we chose. But then, there is reality to deal with. Yes, that imposed reality that we have to work, eat, and interact with others. And it is in that effort that the majority of our energy is expended. Exhausted on imposed reality. It exists, but only for a short time, like a dream. Hasn't it been said, life is like a dream? Reality and dreams can be confused.
 I'm thinking that ethereal energy is what we call our soul. It's a thought I have held for quite some time. I've written about it in the past and suspect I will do so in the future. We know that our body returns to the earth if we do nothing to disrupt that process. Man has long sought to preserve that body for various reasons. The intent, I believe, is a subconscious hope that the body could one day be reanimated. From the story of the Frankenstein monster to cryogenics that is the underlying thought. I believe that to be a foolish enterprise as you can not create energy. Fact is, we can apply electrical impulses to muscles and cause them to twitch, yes it's morbid, but works even after the death of the person. Would we say they are alive? No, because the energy is external and what is required is internal.
 The big question is and always has been how does this energy act upon us? How does that energy arrive to animate us? Is this energy just free floating throughout the universe, or is it created during conception? That is the heart of the matter as far as I am concerned. I can only imagine such  concepts based on the reality I know. I believe energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state to another. That is the science as I understand it. If man could create energy, man could create life. We can't do that, we can only take it. Energy is expended by doing work, another scientific fact. Electrical energy was originally thought to flow from the positive to the negative, but in more recent times the thinking is just the opposite. What is certain is that electrical current always flows from a higher electrical potential to a lower electrical potential, that and opposite to the flow of electrons. So using that knowledge, and applying it to the reality I know, I say that energy comes from God. God being the higher potential energy it naturally follows that energy would be flowing to the negative, which is man. All man can do is expend that energy. That leaves us with the question of how that potential energy( God ) gets recharged. Perhaps it is by the good deeds of man, performing his work here on earth. Perhaps it is as simple as God creates all energy. That is what makes God, well God.
 All of that still leaves leaves me wondering how that energy winds up as our soul. It is the soul that animates the body, although we often call bad people soulless. I just think of them as living in a different reality. A reality I, and many others would describe as neurotic. Another word for that is insane. Insane meaning , not in their right mind. The truth is their reality doesn't match ours, or the majority. It's real to them though, don't forget that. Still no explanation for how it arrives, whether through the positive or negative. We have to have both for the circuit to be completed. Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil, positive and negative, good and bad. Both exist in the world, the world that is our reality. A reality imposed upon us by outside forces.
 What I believe we should do is use that " inside force " to control our reality. That is where " inner peace " resides doesn't it? " The peace of God that passes all understanding " That is a piece of scripture from the Bible that I heard every Sunday, without really hearing it. I wonder if I will be aware of the next reality. Being aware of reality is life, isn't it? Even when that reality is imposed by others? 

verbal violence

 Occasionally foul language will appear on Facebook, falling within community standards I assume, as I haven't heard of any of it being removed, political statements notwithstanding. Now I dislike seeing that language as I find it offensive in certain social settings. I have expressed this on many occasions and caught some flack for doing so, so be it, I will continue to point it out. I do think of Facebook as being in polite company. Some folks I am more familiar with than others, and some I really have no clue about, I seriously question how " honest " the majority of us are, myself included, as we present ourselves to the world. I believe it is far easier to be extroverted, or assertive, when not dealing with people in person. A degree of security is afforded by the relative anonymity of the internet. People can only see what is presented. A wealth of information is available to everyone with just a few clicks. I do question why some refuse to investigate certain claims or assertations before commenting on them. But that is a different matter altogether. I was concerned with this use of language. Many people feel that using foul language is an indication of intelligence. It has been reported both ways incidentally. I don't believe it has a thing to do with intelligence, or a lack of it. It has everything to do with respecting others.
 Cursing, using foul and abusive language is nothing more than verbal assault. It is a form of violence. As such, it does nothing more than incite more of the same. I am tempted at times to respond in kind but exercise restraint out of respect for others. I spent twenty years in the Navy so I feel more than qualified to speak about such matters. You know, I was a choir boy once and there I learned some of those phrases so popular today. During my Navy years I heard many more colorful expressions. A regular heritage of vocabulary you might say. Yes, I engaged in such while in that society. I expect that has changed somewhat since my retirement as the Navy " society " has changed with the inclusion of women on ships. Prior to that you had what? A bunch of men attempting to assert their dominance among men! Yes, that's what men do, women do it too, but in a different fashion. If you want to be tough, you have to act tough. You are supposed to be the Alpha male! Isn't that what we men are told? The leader of the pack, the dominant male, will get all he wants, wimps need to take a back seat. The survival of the fittest! I've witnessed that on more than one occasion. Might makes right! It is also the reason for joining the crowd, there is safety in numbers. If you can't dominate, be popular. That's the general thinking. Better to be subservient than beat up!
 I believe that this general acceptance of language and use, is a reflection of society in general. We have lowered the bar considerably. Where once there was at least a pretense of civility, that has been thrown aside. We see that in our politicians, celebrities, educators and in some instances religious leaders! It has permeated our society to the point that most don't even notice it. Or, if they do, they say nothing. Well, unless it becomes useful to disparage someone that is. Then we will feign offense and disgust by the use of such language. In 1939 Rhett Butler says to Scarlett O'Hara, " frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. " It was a shocking thing to say in the movies, in polite company. Was that the beginning of this social acceptance of verbal violence? It has certainly been repeated often enough. But Rhett was justified in the use of such language wasn't he? Men thought so and the ladies swooned.      
 Crude and offensive language by bullies, nothing new about that, accepting it is. I'm no prude, no saint and certainly not without my moments. But at least I am aware and attempting to make a change for the better. If we all want to be civil we do need to start acting civilly. Seems obvious enough to me. But instead a significant number, if not the majority, have decided that verbal violence is somehow an acceptable form of expression. It's what everybody does. Bothers me though, and I will continue to point it out. It isn't about any "right" or "choice" it's about respecting others. People using those words use them because they want that impact, that gut punch! As these words become used more frequently they are losing their punch, their shock value. Their effectiveness is diminished. Is getting numb to that a good thing? No, I don't believe it is. What else will become socially acceptable? I'm seeing a whole lot of behaviors displayed today that not long ago would have landed you in jail! Yes, some call it acceptance, some call it tolerance, and some call it none of my business. In response to that I would add,

       "No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

John Donne, Meditation XVII

 So yes, it is my business! The choice to buy it is your own. It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.  

pressured to practice

 A couple days ago I read an interesting posting on Facebook. It was a longer post and I'm certain many passed over it. This post was talking about the Catholic faith and how it was misunderstood by many people. Really the post was in defense of that religious practice. I say practice because each denomination of the Christian faith, any faith actually, has its' own practices and rituals. At least I took it as a defense and I understood the sentiment exactly. Tradition, ritual, or familiarity, whatever label you wish to apply does give us comfort. The practice of our faith also provides that comfort. Another reader, a lady I know only by reputation, remarked that it was sad, the largest and most misunderstood religion in the world. My response was, let's not confuse practice with principle. A small discussion followed that exchange. It is these small discussions that linger in my thoughts and become the subject of these musings. I get to feeling a little more explanation is required. The explanation isn't meant to instruct anyone but merely to clarify my own thoughts. Someone said, If you want to know what you believe, write. The author of that bit of wisdom escapes me at the moment. I have found that to be true and so here I am writing.
 What I had in mind when posting that remark about principle, was that faith is the sole requirement. The principle or primary purpose is to provide us with comfort, reassurance and on occasion, courage. The belief in our God, whatever we conceive that God to be, is what provides that. The practice of religion is the outward display of that faith. Initially used to " show " others the benefits of faith, rituals were developed. Perhaps the initial intent was to appease the Gods by some outward display, but my thinking is it was done more for the benefit of others and personal reassurance. No one wants to be alone, especially in belief.
 I don't believe my God requires attendance, only my belief. I was taught the church wasn't the building, but rather the people gathered together. It is a sentiment I have taken to heart. And yes, I learned that in the church building while attending services. That church is the one I was baptized in and attended throughout my youth. It is a magnificent edifice. An Episcopal church I practiced many rituals similar to the Catholics. I never gave that much thought back then, I just routinely attended my church. The way others practiced their faith I found amusing, or just strange. There was much misinformation circulated regarding that. I admit to not having attended an Episcopal service in quite some time. From all accounts much has changed since my last visit. I read where the Book of Common Prayer that I used has been replaced, retired as a relic of the past. I'm not certain what has replaced it or what the changes are. I find that unsettling. They have changed the familiar. But I realize that it is only the outward expression of faith that has been changed, or at least I hope that is the case.
 With that thought I wonder about the outward display of faith. Is that a requirement? I would say it is not, but a natural occurrence for one that believes. What I mean is it is a natural extension of belief. In principle, we must act in that fashion, for that is the heart of belief. The principle is the fundamental truth or proposition that guides our actions. For me, the existence of God is a fundamental truth. I can not accept a theory that everything is accidental or random. Too much order exists in the universe for me to believe that. In order for the universe to have intelligent order, and I don't believe you can deny that, there is a pattern to it all, wouldn't that require an intelligent " something " to order it? I admit it is beyond my comprehension, just what that something is, and that is where belief enters the picture.
 The fundamental question is, what's in it for me? Isn't that the truth of it? Man has always made appeals to his God(s) to intervene in his affairs. Whether we pray for recovery from an illness or success in war we ask for help. For the Christian what is the promise? Life everlasting is the response. That is the reward for acknowledging the existence of God and obeying his commands. Isn't that the Principle, the fundamental truth? It is the belief in that fundamental truth that provides us with the comfort, reassurance and courage we seek. Of course that is dependent upon faith. For what is faith? Faith is the belief that it will happen, whatever you wish to happen. That is the long and short of it. Pragmatic? Yes I suppose that it is a pragmatic approach, but one that stems from my New England heritage of stoicism. Practicality being a major consideration, I seldom allow myself to get enraptured with ethereal things. Those things break much too easily. Belief should be unshakable and infallible but seldom is. That is the frailty of man and why man requires his God(s). The outward displays reassure us. For the present time I go forward on principle alone. That isn't to say that won't change tomorrow or next week. When my principle feels challenged I may resume the practice. In the meantime, I feel no pressure to practice.         

heritage

 Elizabeth Warren has taken an Ancestry DNA test to prove her Native American heritage. The results are in, less than 1/64 of her DNA supports that claim. Is it enough to claim that heritage? In my view, no. In fact I believe for legal purposes it should have to contain greater than 50% to claim that heritage. Ah but heritage is not a legality is it? No I suppose it isn't, but I think when used to gain an advantage it should be substantiated by proof. If we don't do that what prevents me from just claiming whatever heritage is expedient at the time? If the scientists are to be believed we all came out of Africa in the far distant past. Using that wouldn't we all be considered Africans? Wouldn't we all be able to claim that heritage. That, to me, is the issue at hand. Do we only need to claim a heritage to qualify? Or do we need to display some physical qualities consistent with whatever heritage we are claiming? And then we would have to define those physical qualities wouldn't we? And if we define those physical qualities wouldn't we be establishing a stereotype? And wouldn't that then lead to racial profiling! Hey, we will not allow that will we? I certainly hope not. So, we are left with a DNA analysis. But, does a DNA analysis reflect our cultural heritage? I submit that it certainly does not. It only reflects our biological heritage. So the question becomes, how far back does your cultural heritage extend? How many generations? Is there a way to determine that? I don't think that there is.
 After reading and hearing the report on Elizabeth Warren and her DNA test results I did some further research I don't know a whole lot about how all that works. The available information I was able to read and comprehend with some clarity, I'm no geneticist or scientist, stated there is no data base of strictly " Native American " DNA to compare the findings with. To be brief about it there is no unique DNA marker identifying any Native Americans. The closet DNA markers would show North American markers, as in the North American continent. Even that DNA would also be consistent with South American peoples, so we could say the America's. Elizabeth Warren hired a Stanford professor to analyze her DNA and he arrived at this conclusion; she has DNA consistent with the North Americans. Interesting but not definitive proof of any Native American heritage unless you wish to consider that on a much larger scale, similar to being European. I haven't had my DNA tested but I'm certain I'm of European descent and probably a few others as well. The thing is, as far as heritage goes, I'm all American in my view. And for that very reason I don't hyphenate anything before that. I'm not German-American or Swedish American, I'm an American. Heritage is what we inherit! Heritage isn't what my ancestors hundreds of years ago had, heritage is what is passed on to me.
 The real issue in all of this is whether she claimed that heritage to gain an advantage. I did some reading about that and there is no proof positive that she did. The only evidence of that is circumstantial. She made no mention of this heritage until she was in her thirties. No mention of that until it was political expedient to do so. And by " political " I mean as in politically correct to claim such, no different in my opinion  than Rachel Dolzal  claiming to be African American. I don't recall her taking a DNA test but her own parents said she was not of African-American descent. She was accused of cultural appropriation. Her defense is, I identify as a black person. Strangely to me, there are those that support her in that claim, probably the same people identifying as things they are not. I'll just leave that to you, the reader, to figure out what I mean by that.
 I have seen a number of these ancestry pie charts. Interesting and an amusing point of discussion. I have yet to see one that shows an ancestry greater than 50% in any one area. The reason is simple enough, no one is 50/50. No one! The different races of people have intermixed since the very beginning of time. Don't the scientist talk about Neanderthals and some other group intermingling? DNA is concerned with genetic makeup not heritage. I wonder how so many people have gotten the two confused? Well, when there is something to be gained I understand completely. Win the lottery and gain relatives! I can take a DNA test to prove I share your cultural heritage. No, my DNA can only reveal my biological heritage. We are both Europeans! That means we are related right?
  For me the question is a simple one. Do you get to choose your identity? Is it optional? If that is the case how many times can I change it? Whenever it becomes convenient to do so? Is your heritage the same as your identity? I believe it is. If you choose to deny that, it doesn't change that. It doesn't change your heritage anymore than a sex change operation changes your sex. Take a DNA test and the X's and Y's you were born with remain the same. In short you are whatever sex you were born regardless of any personal identifying you choose to do. Just a scientific fact. So what Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal were/are doing is appropriating a culture. Is that a crime? No, but it's delusional, deceptive and dishonest. Describes both of those individuals to a tee in my opinion. Does it matter? Yes, facts matter a great deal in my opinion.          

where diid you get that?

 I heard on the news that Sears has filed for bankruptcy. Good ole, dear Sear & Roebuck. Roebuck stopped being used in the name in 2004. That was the year Sears merged with K-Mart, it was all downhill from there. Will Sears make a comeback? I don't know but seeing it close it's doors will be like hearing about the passing of an old friend. I haven't visited that friend in quite some time but haven't forgotten. Sears Roebuck & Co. was a large part of Christmas at my house. It was the primary go to catalogue for all those Christmas wishes. Since 1933, the year of the first Christmas wish book, I think almost every child in America " browsed " those pages. You could say it was the first browser! Pages were bookmarked and items circled. The number of circles indicating priority. At least that is the way it worked at my house.
 There were other catalogues around, Montgomery Ward, Spiegel and JC Penney being the most notable but Sears definitely lead the pack. Was it the wide selection or glossy pages? Or was it the revolving credit that Mom and Dad enjoyed so much? It was like having an account with Santa Claus himself. I remember vividly the Sears catalogue and time spent thumbing through it. Those others were there but I only remember the names. I'm not sure why but the perception was their products just weren't as good as Sears. I was surprised when I heard of Sears acquiring K-Mart. K-mart is the red headed step-child of Walmart, the king of retailers! Why Sears wanted to associate itself with that is beyond me? I can only guess their hope was to stay competitive. Walmart and Target stores proved too much I guess.
 A lot has changed since I was kid in the fifties and sixties. Now we can order anything, from just about anyone, online. It sure makes the Sears " Big Book " look like a pamphlet in comparison. Face it, there is no comparison. Maybe it is just a thing of the past but I do believe holding that book in your hands added to the thrill. I still prefer reading an actual book rather than an online thing. Books seem to have more personality. The Sears big book also served as a booster seat at Thanksgiving or whenever it was necessary. What a shame. Times change and so does retail. The only thing that doesn't change is the quest for profits. That will never go away.
 I haven't given up on Sears though. Look at Toys R Us, there is talk of them making a return. They went bankrupt. If Toys R Us can do it maybe Sears can too. Big business is still a bit of a mystery to me. How these corporations can operate millions of dollars in debt is beyond me. They talk of assets and their worth. They are only worth what someone else is willing to pay though. What does Sears have to offer? Buildings mostly would be my guess. Sears doesn't manufacture a thing. Their biggest asset, I would think, is sentiment. If they can find a way to market that, they would do alright once again.But I think Sears & Roebuck allowed that to slip away in pursuit of greater profits in a changing market. Well, all that is for the business people to figure out. I'll always remember the Sears catalogue and the excitement of circling the items I wanted. The kids today can do the same on the computer I suppose, but how to get Mom and Dad to see it? I usually just left that book in Dad's recliner or on the furniture somewhere. The pages would be open! Hey, the bathroom was a prime location to leave that marked up catalogue. Wonder what the kids today do? Send an e-mail with an attachment? Or do you tweet that information?
 Strange isn't it? I remember back in the day someone would ask, where did you get that, Sears and Roebuck? It was intended as a slight, inferring the product was of inferior quality. Now hearing of the possible downfall of that company I am saddened. Now, I would be proud to say, why Yes, Yes I did!        

a matter of trust

 There is a commercial about a Hyundai car that sets me to thinking every time I see it. The main feature being advertised about this vehicle is a tracking feature. This car will send information back to, in this case parents, informing them of the cars' present location. In the commercial the parents arrive on the scene to catch their child red handed at a party. Busted, by a Hyundai. What bothers me is not that the car has that ability, but that the parents choose to use it. What message are you sending to your child with that? The implication was clear, the child, one old enough to drive remember, wasn't aware of this tracking technology and then the parents arrive to confront him. Oh, it's a television commercial so the parents calmly take the kid aside to discuss this infraction. I suspect in real life the " bust " would be different but that's just a guess on my part. Yes in a Hallmark movie the kid would be properly chastised and promises made to never do that again, hugs all around, because it is just that we love and care about you so much. But, in my experience that isn't a realist scenario.
 My thoughts aren't just about that car. No, I'm thinking about all the technology we use everyday. What kid doesn't have a cell phone? You can track them fairly easily. I'm certain there are many other devices that can be used as well. I wonder what effect all this tracking is having on our kids? I mean. when I was " old enough " I was allowed to roam free. Old enough meant my parents trusted me. Yes, the other adults in town would report any infractions to your parents. It was also true your parents received these reports and believed them. You would have thought it was Christine Ford testifying! You were guilty until proven innocent and even then being innocent was your fault. If I were a child and my parents informed me I was being tracked I wouldn't believe they were trusting me. If they did that without my knowledge and I found out, I would be quite hurt and upset with that as well. Am I not to be trusted? That is the central question for me.
 Tracking the whereabouts of your children? To me that is overstepping the bounds of respect and trust. If I were presented with that car, knowing it had a tracking device, I would just say no thanks. If I can't be trusted to drive it where you want me to drive it, I'd rather not drive it at all. Seriously, that would be my attitude. It would be like going to a party under the condition you come with me, no thanks. I don't want you sitting behind me in the movie theater either. Either you trust me or you don't. How can you expect your children to become independent adults if you insist on monitoring them? Are we now going to use electronic apron strings? Invisible streaming information about our location being reported back to the wardens? I don't know, I find the whole deal unsettling.
 I remember when Mom loosened the apron strings allowing me to go to the corner store by myself, it was a great feeling. I remember when she said, you can ride your bicycle uptown, just be careful. I felt pretty grown up then. When I was able to get in my car and the only instruction I received was, be home by suppertime, or call me, I felt grown. If Mom had attached a tracking device to me I don't believe I would have had the same feeling at all. Wouldn't that be like having your dog on a leash? You can only go so far. What's that saying? If you love something let it go, if it comes back it loves you. It's a matter of trust.            

Guided by accident?

  Are we here on purpose or is it all accidental? That is the central question that needs answered. It would determine whether there are morals, ethics and standards that we need to follow or if we can just act on our own. To put it another way, whether there is a God or not. I say that because what is the purpose of God? Ultimate consequence is the answer. What happens after our death is determined by that. Man has always looked to the skies. What's out there? Whatever it is, does it effect what is happening here? If it does, then there has to be a God or Gods. Then wouldn't that God or Gods have to be present to monitor the situation? Seems reasonable enough to me. The questions remaining are does that God, or Gods, have laws that we are required to obey? What happens if we don't? What is the ultimate consequence?
 Now if it is all accidental none of that would matter at all. Then we could just do whatever we felt like doing. Morals, ethics and standards being established by the society in which we live. The only law is man's law. If we don't obey those laws what are the consequences? They are only what society establishes as punishment. What is the purpose of punishment? Is it to correct wrong behaviors or merely a consequence? Does punishment serve a purpose? If this is accidental, life I mean, what, if any punishment would exist after death? Or, for that matter, what reward? Neither would have to be the conclusion. Are you ready to accept that? Are you willing to believe that everything you do is ultimately of no consequence?
 William Faulkner said, " a man's moral conscience is the curse he had to accept from the God's in order to gain from them the right to dream. " William Lippmann thought this, " Our conscience is not the vessel of verities, it grows with our social life, and a new social condition means a radical change in conscience. " Personally I like what Alphonse de Lamartine had to say about conscience. He said, " A conscience without a God is like a court without a judge. " I believe that.I do believe I will be judged. Faulkner spoke of the right to dream. Without that ability what purpose would there be in life, what to look forward too? It would surely make for a miserable existence. William Lippmann believed your conscience changes with your social condition. I believe you may surrender your conscience to social conditions, our conscience is easily silenced or dismissed by our immediate wants and needs. Does that change our conscience? No, I don't believe it does.
 My original questions remains. Are we here on purpose or is it all accidental? I'm thinking it all depends upon acceptance of conscience. If you accept that you have a conscience, you have a God. If you have a God, that God will judge you. What you call that God is of little consequence to that God. Listening to your God is the primary objective. Will your God alter the course of events in response to your requests? Is the outcome predetermined, or is that accidental as well? What is the ultimate consequence? Isn't that what we all really want to know? Are your actions predicated upon consequence, or do you act on conscience in spite of consequence? Is that what defines a pious man? Is that what God is, conscience? " There is but one way to achieve happiness on this terrestrial ball, and that is either to have a clear conscience or none at all. " ( Ogden Nash ) Want to ne happy? Listen to your conscience. Or I guess I could just have said, let your conscience be your guide. The question then becomes, were are you going? You have a guide, just follow the path. Who or what is that guide? Conscience or God?         

signs of the season

 Fall weather arrived last evening while I was at the soccer game. Like a line out of Forest Gump, just like that, it was fall. Their wasn't a lot of wind but it was definitely chilly. While I was driving to the game I had asked my wife if she had seen or heard the geese yet? She hadn't and neither have I. That is usually the first true indicator of fall that I get around here. Speaking to a acquaintance while at the concession stand I learned an interesting fact. I asked him about the geese. He assured me they hadn't arrived yet because the golf course wasn't covered in poop! Ah, so another indicator, one I wasn't aware of as I don't play golf. That gentleman went on to explain what a nuisance those geese could be. I chuckled about that because just a few hours earlier I had read an article about geese. Fun fact, they poop on average every seven minutes. The article I read explained it was due to their rudimentary digestive system. After reading that I thought I always thought fall was because of the leaves falling but maybe it really had to do with the arrival of those geese. I guess the things we know and relate too are really dependent upon where we grew up and lived as children. Birds and pooping? Sea gulls. That is just one of three things that gulls do, they eat, they poop and they squawk! My father liked to compare me to those gulls in that fashion. The reason I use a gull as my profile picture. Geese were not a big part of fall when I was small, duck season was. Fall was falling leaves, cold winds and the beginning of the school year. Today it's the arrival of geese and mums! The road signs may have changed but the destination remains the same, winter.
 There are signs we read whether consciously or subconsciously. It seems to me I have become more aware of the signs as I grow older. It could be I am becoming familiar with them because I have seen them more. The time between them hasn't changed, but their arrival appears that way. The season come and go at a pretty fast pace these days. Just where did summer go? It was here two days ago, now it's no where in sight. There are pumpkins, mums and cornstalks everywhere. Halloween decorations are popping up all over. I won't even mention the store decorations and displays. Those signs can be seen nearly year round these days. I remember when they could serve as an indicator of the season, today not so much. But the signs I am talking about are natures signs. They are different depending upon location. I wonder what fall is like in the desert or the mid-west? I haven't lived in those areas. What signs would you see?
 I suspect Hallmark has a lot to do with our perceptions of the seasons. Hallmark is synonymous with all of that. Sentiment is their product and they have marketed that sentiment with great success. They even branched out into those made for television movies. The Hallmark channel. That channel does provide some signs of the seasons, I believe Christmas movies are already being streamed to the masses.  In the sixties, when I was growing up, A Miracle on 32nd Street was the movie of the season. A little before that, but after Thanksgiving, a advertisement for Norelco shavers with Santa Claus riding on those " floating heads" marked the beginning of the Christmas season. Well all that is the commercial side of the seasons. It's a shame we couldn't have just left out that side of the holidays altogether. I guess it's progress. The degree of sentiment being measured by the degree of commercial success.
 The sign of the seasons. What are your signs? Mine have changed. When I was young it was the things important to young people. The beginning and end of the school year. Summer. Yes, stuff happened in between that served as distractions during the school year. I didn't play organized sports and so the season didn't effect me in that way. I loved baseball and that arrived in spring and ended in the fall. So that took care of that. Not much of a hunter the seasons didn't matter all that much to me in that regard. I would go hunting as the mood struck, not very often. Fact is, when I was a kid I pretty much took nature for granted. I was neither fascinated, nor adverse to what Mother nature offered. I find myself paying a bit more attention to it with each passing year. I was born in the summer, just about mid July. That's when the year starts on my clock. I used to think that summer would always come around and so far it has. But now, fall gets me to thinking, with that chill wind and things falling down! The signs of the season have changed. The signs center more on nature now, more properly, natural occurrences. Beginnings and endings. I have a new understanding of where I fit in the picture. I am a part of nature. I have a beginning and an end. I am getting a bit sentimental about all of that.      
       

drowned out

 Anyone that knows me knows I love to talk. But now I find myself growing tired of the conversation. When we begin to dismiss a presumption of innocence and decide that people are guilty based solely on an accusation, there isn't much left to say. You can't really debate that attitude. When we base our arguments on aberrations and proclaim those aberrations as the norm, there is no refuting it. Acknowledging that something exists does not make it normal! Yet, that is the very argument I hear over and over again. Indeed one can be vilified for even suggesting otherwise. My evidence for this? Suggest that something happened to a black person because it was actually their fault and not because of prejudice. Go ahead, try it. Suggest that a woman may be lying about sexual assault, yeah, try that one time. Try to suggest that rich people are actually paying their fair share. Ha, good luck with any of that. White privilege is written in stone! Every white person in America is privileged and prejudiced. That's the word on the street anyway! Well unless you are one of the " cool " people then you're not. If you agree with the current agenda of equality means " special considerations " for race, creed or sexual orientation. Equal is only equal when you are given the upper hand, when you can play the Trump card. And I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I can tell you this much, for even suggesting this I will be labeled a racist and a string of other equally unsavory names.
 We need to start our conversations without assumptions. That is the biggest issue I can see. It isn't everyone and everything, it is someone and somethings! That is how the conversation should start. We have become so sensitized to other peoples assumptions that we are afraid to speak honestly about anything. Politically correct is what they are calling it. Sensitive is another adjective for that. Well I can tell you this much, if you want people to pay attention and react to things, they need to feel it! Yes, it takes a prod every now and again to get some attention. You will hurt their feelings but they will pay attention. Sometimes its' gonna hurt to get healed. I'm not talking about physical violence here, I'm talking about an honest conversation. And that is something talked about all the time but seldom heard. Too many drowning that out with repeating the popular response. Another reason it is called the bandwagon!
  

non-binary

 I saw a post on my newsfeed about New York City joining Oregon, Washington and New Jersey in allowing a non-binary designation on birth certificates. Yes, a third option for your gender. It is for those folks that don't identify as male or female. The new rule in New York also removed the requirement for a Doctor to change your designation. The reason for that can only be assumed. I'm assuming it's because a trained medical professional has the amazing ability to tell male from female, but no ability to identify a third option. I also know the reason for that, because there is no third option! I've certainly pointed this out in the past, but gender really is a binary thing. Ying and Yang, male and female. X and Y. It's been that way since the very beginning and the DNA evidence proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt. That being well established I am still puzzled by this third option.
I am confused by Category X. That's what it can read on your birth certificate.
 A birth certificate is a legal document identifying you as a human being. It is the bona-fide proof that you were born. That in itself speaks volumes about the system we are dealing with. Yes we take it for granted, but imagine, for just a minute if you can, a world where you need documentation to prove you exist! You are living in that world. This document is issued when you are born. This document is a recording of facts. The time, place and weight when you were born is recorded. Your footprints are placed on the document. And yes, that document says whether you are a male or female of the species we call homo-sapiens. That document has nothing to do with your personal feelings or the personal feelings of the parents. Fact is, you don't really have an opinion on what sex you identify as because, well, you're a newborn! And for that very reason any " changes " made to that document should come in the form of an addendum. When you are old enough to decide you want to be an " x " or whatever. Then, and only then, should that document modified and codified to reflect that change all the while maintaining the chain of documentation. Think of it as a chain of custody. I'm thinking if you have to be 18 to vote, you should have to be at least 18 to vote on your gender as well. And yes, it would take a vote for the simple reason, it's a choice. I should think the liberal people supporting all of this gender identifying stuff would agree, they love choice! Regardless of fact, it's a choice.
 Setting aside this question of what you want to identify yourself as, gender is a biological marker. That's all it is, a scientific fact. How can a parent or legal guardian, or anyone else determine what a new born wants to be? That new born is whatever gender it was born as. How is that not obvious? How can so many people be duped into approving of such a ridiculous thing? I'm talking about the original birth certificate here. For thousands of years fathers wished for a son, and mothers wished for daughters, sometimes they were disappointed. Thing is they got one or the other despite that disappointment. But now we are deciding to label that child non-binary? I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this. We are talking about what is physically. We are not recording what we wished this child to become, or what we wish that child was, we are recording what gender that child
Yes there is a disorder where you can be born with both sex organs. It's a birth defect.
 The big question is why? Why would you insist on placing your new born in category X? Is there something inherently wrong with being male or female? If we can change the designation of gender, can we also change the designation of race? Why not? I'm always hearing about the disadvantaged minorities. I'll just change that designation on my child's birth certificate and save them from that! Makes as much sense as changing their gender doesn't it. Personally I think they are going to notice, sooner or later. And then the question to Mom, why am I in category X, am I different than everyone else? If I wasn't born, by the legal evidence presented, as a boy or girl what am I? I want to hear that explained to a three or four year old. Well dear, when you get old enough you can just decide for yourself, Mommy and Daddy couldn't tell. The doctors couldn't tell either so you are " special. " Yeah, okay. That ought to make things clear enough. Do you take this " category X " homo sapien as your life partner? Neither bride nor groom shall you be. Well I'm assuming again. I guess a cat x could marry a cat x then the result would be a double xx right? We do need to add a member to the birthing team, a medium. That way we could just record the proper gender designation when they are born, avoiding cat x altogether! Oh wait, we already know what gender they are, No we don't! Well, we know what we want, we don't know what the baby wants, cat x it is.
 If this whole blog sounds stupid there is a reason for that. It's a stupid subject! Non-binary? Bunch of idiots! That's the bottom line here. And my final word. 

uncertain

 This morning I find myself ruminating. My thoughts are so deep I can't see them! That's a problem when trying to post. Today is my sisters birthday and one of my granddaughter's too. One is 67 and the other 15. I won't mention names, it's not nice to tell a ladies age. Suffice to say I wish them both Happy Birthday.
 It is easy to get disillusioned these days. I listen to the pundits on the television, I read the comments on social media and see the viral videos, not many encouraging I can tell you that. What I see is a refusal to accept facts and reality. That's the disillusionment. It is the source of that rumination. How can so many be so misguided? There doesn't appear to be any sense of direction in any of this. Otherwise intelligent people acting like a bunch of fools. Where is the self discipline? Where is the common sense?
 I'm thinking the most troubling is the realization that there are many that would dismiss the presumption of innocence to further their agenda. I'm certain you have seen that meme that says, only two votes preserved the presumption of innocence. A shocking truth if given thought. Two votes separated us, the United States of America from some third world backwoods nation that convicts people based on rumor, innuendo, or outright lies. A judicial committee of the United States Senate voted in nearly a fifty- fifty split on just that. Think about that. It was the same odds as a coin toss!
 Well, I'll continue my ruminating until I see what it is I'm thinking about. At this point, I'm just not certain.

Who?

 Yesterday was Columbus day, indigenous peoples day in some states, and I heard the annual complaining about Christopher Columbus. Yes it's true he was no saint. Yes, it is true he was European, an Italian guy, and sailed for Spain. He ran into Hispaniola mistaking it for the East Indies and killed and enslaved the natives there. Later some of the Spanish crewmembers from his ships stayed on Hispaniola using the natives as forced laborers. These Spanish folks also transmitted European diseases to these folks and it wiped them out completely. It was genocide by disease. Certainly it wasn't part of the plan, after all the labor force all died, but that's what happened. That took place about 500 years ago. Three hundred years after that took place some Italian people in America decided to celebrate Columbus and his voyages of discovery. Putting a " spin " on history the story was told. As the years went by Columbus day became a good celebration, an excuse to party a bit. Then, it was made a national holiday. Everyone loves a national holiday. Now, some have decided that Columbus is not deserving of a holiday. These folks are not proposing doing away with the holiday however, just renaming it. Hey, that's what we do these days. We just call things by a different name and that's makes it alright. Columbus day, the actual day, was October the 12. In 1971, it was included in the holiday realignment act. Basically we decided Columbus deserved no more than a three day weekend. Now we have decided he shouldn't get that either but we want to keep the holiday anyway. Hey, thanks Chris, we know you were a miserable person but appreciate the holiday buddy.
 The reason for renaming Columbus day to indigenous peoples day is to reflect what really happened. That is the reason I keep hearing. We shouldn't celebrate the fact that Columbus never set foot in North America, that he enslaved the people of Hispaniola, and that he really never knew where he was at all. No, we should remember all that terrible history and celebrate that instead. We'll call it indigenous people day to make it sound better. Forget about Columbus, we are celebrating the American Natives that never saw or heard of Columbus in North America, at least not until the 1790's or so anyway. Want to be mad at a people that first interacted with the North American natives? Take a good look at the Spanish. Yes, it was the Spanish. Yeah, I know, more white folk and all the white folks are bad. At least that is the storyline today. They call those people White apologists. It's alright as long as you say you're sorry isn't it? Doesn't that negate history? Some folks sure seem to think so. Well, I'm not apologizing for what my ancestors may or may not have done, I wasn't there. The goal is to learn from that history, not apologize for it. I'm thinking us white people have made pretty good strides in the last five hundred years or so. We're not perfect but we're humans after all. Other races have pretty much done the same thing as the white folks, just on a smaller scale. Why they didn't go sailing around and conqueror people I couldn't say. Guess they just liked to stay home, on their own continent's and Islands. I can't say as I've read an explanation for that, have you? Could it be all the other races were morally superior to the Europeans? Is that why they never " migrated " anywhere else? Well because isn't that what history teaches? The Europeans migrated to the Americas first via the land bridge and later by ship. Oh, I forgot, today we call that invading a foreign nation, although there was no nation to invade. Well, unless we were seeking refuge that is, that's another scenario altogether. But, then I read where man came up out of Africa to populate the world. The latest story has them heading to India first and spreading out more from there. That would explain why they never migrated after that, what we Europeans call, exploring. They were already there! Must have gotten the word back to the home folks to not bother.
 Well, Columbus day is behind us for another year. One day it will not be mentioned much, becoming Indigenous peoples day. That's alright, I remember when Memorial day was called Decoration day too. Just a sign of the times. Wonder when Thanksgiving day is going to be renamed. The natives don't have much to be thankful for when it comes to that bunch do they? That history has been written and rewritten several times already. I'm sticking with the Squanto version. Pilgrims and turkeys and that whole scene. It's a comfort. As far as I'm concerned it was a mutual exchange. We needed them and they wanted some of our tools. There was wrongdoing between both sides. In my experience it doesn't matter a whole lot about race when it comes to money. People will interact with each other for the purpose of gaining wealth, whatever form that wealth may take. They will also take advantage, cheat, or otherwise manipulate each other to gain an advantage. That's what people do.
In the meantime I'll see what else I can find to offend me in some fashion. If I'm offended that means I'm intelligent. Smarter than you anyway. Columbus, really, what were you thinking?