giving it away

 When your economy is dependent upon other peoples money you will have to sacrifice your heritage. Seems like a simple enough thing to understand. Perhaps I understand it because it was that way where I grew up. The locals, the blue collar folks, were those that struggled to get by, day by day, year after year. Families working together maintaining a way of life. The same concept as the Waltons television show, only not nearly as perfect. Everything didn't always work out in the end. And I'd say at this point the Waltons lost the mill and the mountain! The merchants and shopkeepers were dependent upon that summer crowd. Yes, that was the bread and butter that was so greedily sort after. Oh, the blue collar folks tried to grab as much as that as possible as well, I wouldn't try to deny that, the off season was long and cold. The economy was dependent upon that, no doubt about it.
 But now that heritage has all been sold. Not much left but stories and some relics. There are a few that would have you believe the old ways continue, but it isn't true. Government and greed have all but erased that. Government imposing their rules and regulations that strangled an industry. Government imposing restrictions of a way of life that existed for two hundred years . And greed, a greed born of necessity I would say. Those providing the capital that sustained the economy demanding more and more. Eventually heritage was sold for a profit. The reason was a basic one, survival. If I can no longer work the water or the land for a profit, I am forced to sell. To make grand speeches about heritage and the preserving of it doesn't put bread on the table. I understand that all too well. When your home has become nothing more than an amusement park for the wealthy what are your choices? Yes, they will require support personal, like the help at an amusement park, someone has to clean up. Others play a role, like characters in a theme park, they roam the town and interact with the guests. The hope being the guests will throw a few crumbs there way. Maybe even a tip or two!
 The same is true of a nation. When the nation becomes dependent upon other peoples money the same thing will happen. The Japanese already own a great deal of Florida, foreign interests own a great portion of America today. But first the people need to be dependent upon other peoples money. That is the aim of socialism. Make the people dependent upon the governments money! This is accomplished when you convince the people that the " government " has money. When the population decides that government should be like Mom and Dad, just give you a handout whenever you get into trouble. After all, the government has money! That is the first illusion perpetrated on the public and I'm seeing more and more people believing this. How many today saying the government should provide free health care, free college , free housing and the list goes on. The government has money! Whose money is it? It's mine and yours. Taxes collected are for what purpose? Conducting the business of government is the answer. Taxes are not collected to fund you!
 Once the people become dependent upon other peoples money, those other people begin to dictate their desires. Government begins to control everything. If you can't see that happening, you haven't been watching. If you fail to toe the line, benefits are withheld. Don't give the government their " share " and see how fast you are penalized. And who is determining how much that share should be? The government is. When was the last time you got to vote on that? You don't. It's that simple really. And so many become convinced they have a voice. Hah, you can voice all the opinions you want the end result will always be the same. Other peoples money will buy whatever they desire. You will sell! Heritage? What heritage? That will be sold as quickly as the electronic transfer of funds can be accomplished. Afterwards, I will claim that heritage as lost, but in fact, it was sold. And thus is the nature of man. That desire for more will lead us down the path, the path to dependence.
 Happens every time. Strange isn't it? Those we most admire were dependent upon no one, we recognize that, and yet, we work our self into dependence. We started out with a dream, the American dream. What many fail to understand is, you can't finance a dream, you do have to work and sacrifice to achieve that dream. Unless of course you have plenty of cash, then you can just buy it, the poor people will sell. No problem. And now our Government, you know the government with all the money is three trillion dollars in debt. How much longer before we have to sell? How long before we are dependent upon other people's money? Strange too, we aren't even selling it, we are giving it away.         

Why

 The taking of a life. It has been on my mind since reading about what the Democrats have done. In case you haven't read or heard about that, they have voted, decided, that if a baby survives a botched abortion, it can then just be left to die. That's right, just discard that life as though it never existed at all. Turn your back and walk away. I'm struck with the callousness of it all. How can you allow that to happen, how can you cast your ballot with a yea! Surely you have no soul left.
 I have railed against Roe V Wade for years. I don't believe anyone, including the mother, has a right to kill. I have yet to reconcile that concept with the idea of choice. My body, my choice? All the possible scenarios are nothing more than rationalizations for killing that life. As though it is somehow justified when you didn't choose to get pregnant. I didn't choose this, so I can kill this! I grew more concerned as the terms and conditions were lowered and the availability of the " procedure " became readily available, indeed advertised as a service! And now this, killing even the born. Oh, I've heard the argument about it isn't a child until it is born. And now there are those saying, if I tried to kill the baby but it didn't die in the womb, I can just neglect that live birth until the baby dies. What's the reasoning there? I tried? What kind of sick mind comes up with this and what kind of sick mind votes in favor of such?
 You know there are days when I wake up and hope it is just a nightmare. Surely I can't be living in this Orwellian world. I can't think of a better term to describe this latest decision. If a person survives any sort of tragic accident, survives some dreaded disease, do we not exhaust all possibilities to save that life? If a person is in an accident, becomes a paraplegic, do we just leave them to die? We have already decided it is an acceptable choice to help them kill themselves, assisted suicide! Many people now feel that is a charitable act. You want to die, I'll help! I'm still in the mindset that I will help you want to live as best I can. I'm not going to say, alright, just take these pills I provided they'll kill you! Oh but it can only be done under certain defined conditions, yeah you mean like abortions. That is the way that began and look what we have today. Once you make an action a normal thing that's what it is. So now we are going to say it is normal to allow live births to just lie on the table and die. Soon we will start saying anytime a person wants to commit suicide, we are there to help! Isn't that what Planned Parenthood says? We are here to help!
 Well. I'm writing this and I realize I'm preaching to the choir. I believe most of the folks that read my writings are in agreement with me. That's why they read it. I'm not fooling myself in that regard. I do feel better for having recorded my thoughts and feelings. I know I'm not alone and it is my belief that one day my descendants will read this stuff. I want them to know I was on the right side of history. I want them to know that I wasn't fooled and I didn't surrender the Republic! I'm no saint that much is certain. But I will never condone the killing of babies under any conditions. I will never be convinced it is somehow noble and charitable to assist in taking a life. That's not assisting, that's being an accomplice! What I don't understand, what I just don't get, is someone uses a racial slur, utters the " N " word and a great cry and hue goes up. People are removed from their positions, people are tried in court, peoples careers have ended for that and yet, our representatives, yes they are all our representatives regardless of political affiliation once they assume office, vote YEA to killing babies. I don't see any great opposition, no great social outcry. Why? That's what I don't understand, Why?  Yeah, you have folks like me writing, expressing our disgust, and there are a great many of us. Why aren't our representatives doing more to stop this vile, evil legislation! Why aren't we protesting, marching in the streets? Why? Someone please tell me why?  

Decided

 I suppose it is an aging thing. I have begun to notice things that went unnoticed ( to me ) in the past. The most obvious are the television commercials. Now I realize these commercials are designed to sell a product and appeal to the masses. Something I have noticed quite a bit lately is the makeup of the characters. Many commercials are mini stories and as such depict characters. Mom and Dad, brother and sisters, that type of thing. Have you noticed the increase in inter-racial couples? Inter racial couples do make up 15% of all marriages in the United States. Is 15% the norm? I'd say it wasn't. Gay marriages are less than one half of one percent, yet are represented far more frequently. I view this a marketing ploy. We need to include everyone when selling our products. Nothing wrong with that. I do see it as a normalization as well. What our children see on television does influence what they will believe. I'm not a sociologist or anything like that, but it is common sense. By portraying these family units in this way it will be a normal thing to children. This is true with other topics as well, How often do you see commercials about ED? It has become a common thing hasn't it? If I were to mention he has ED, you would most likely know exactly what I was talking about. Would that have been true twenty years ago? I highly doubt that unless you were in the medical field. There are many examples of that sort of thing today. The list of diseases and ailments you may have is a long one and I'd suggest we have all been made aware of them. Well, that's what the drug companies advertise. The promise of a better life! Drugs can make you live longer, enjoy life greater and make you feel young while doing it! That's the basic promise being made.
 The advertisements I watched as a kid were quite tame compared to what you may see today. Ever heard of Peyronie's disease? There's a commercial for that. And there are many advertisements for products in case you have " odors " in certain places. If I can smell that, I'm probably a little too close in the first place, but I'll just leave that there. I remember Mom and Dad sitting at the breakfast table eating Cheerios in my youth. Families did things together back then and weren't portrayed as going different directions like so many are today. Of course Mom was always a woman and Dad was always a man. Not the case today. It is a change in expectations isn't it? I mean that is what is being shown, This is what to expect in certain situations. It's the new normal. All the discussion, all the talk about what were " private " conversations between your Doctor, or your Mom and Dad, perhaps a brother are now just out there in the public domain. Are there any topics we shouldn't discuss openly anymore? I 'd say there aren't. Thing is there are certain topics you can only discuss if you support them. To discuss any of those topics in a negative light will get you labeled. In my generation you may have been called square or that you weren't cool. The name calling has gotten much more brutal these days. Now we fling around those fancy terms that few had even heard of before. Migyonist is one of my favorites. Who beside a psych major had ever heard of that before? Xenophobia, homophobia and a few other phobias. The insult to you is supposed to be that you are afraid. Afraid of what is my response. The response is often, what you don't understand. My answer is, I understand I don't like it!  
 As I said, I guess it is an aging thing. I have become somewhat set in my ways. I'm okay with that. It has taken me this long to decide upon certain things. Now having expended sixty some years coming to a conclusion why would I want to change it? Know what I mean? I believe you do have to make a decision at some point. There comes a time to just stand up, speak your piece, and let the chips fall where they may. Am I too old to change? Nope, but I have decided. Educated or opinionated? A little of both I think. Some things never change. When you are young the changes aren't as obvious. As we age we begin to notice those changes and they can be unsettling. When we are young we support changes as being progressive. When we get old we want to keep the changes we made. Well, sometimes we do anyway. That is where the opinion part of the equation fits in. In my opinion I'm seeing an awful lot of nonsense being pushed as progressive, when in fact those behaviors are regressive. But the pendulum swings both ways and will return one day. I don't think I'll live to see it. No matter, I'll just keep handing out my opinion, free to everyone.      

lost in time

Once again I was reminded of time. First I saw this photograph of a classmate. It was on Facebook and I had to comment that she looked exactly as I remembered her. That's because I haven't seen her since those days. For me that would be 1971 so yes, that is the girl I remembered. It was a very pleasant thing, a comfort of sorts. For just a moment I was back in time, walking the halls of the school. In my mind a flood of faces went by, I wondered how many would remember my face? I'm certain that my friends would, but what of the others, those we called classmates? A good number of them were nothing more than acquaintances. Yes, yes, we were classmates but that doesn't mean we actually knew each other. Many were known only by reputation or their family name and all that carried. Older and younger siblings played into that dynamic as well. My circle of friends was quite small. I wasn't a part of the popular crowd, the cool kids. I was just there. 

 Since I joined Facebook I have gotten to see photographs of a good number of those folks. It is always a surprise to see the changes. I'm certain many are surprised when they see mine as well. I know, sometimes I am surprised myself when looking in the mirror! It's just that if you haven't seen the person in almost fifty years it can be a surprise. Strange how some are immediately recognizable and others are not. Now this lady whose picture I just saw was immediately recognizable to me. I could put a name to that face. That's what I talking about. Say you had a yearbook from your high school and the names weren't there, how many could you fill in? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment? I have some pictures from my Navy days and admit there are some faces in those that I can no longer name. I was in their company, that's obvious enough, but yet I can't remember. Why? I'm guessing that person just didn't leave an impression. They left no memory. Was it their fault? That doesn't seem fair. What makes a person memorable? 

 Today is the birthday of  someone I went to school with. This person was also in my circle of friends. I knew him well. I knew him as Robert. He recently appeared on Facebook, at least on my pages, and I hadn't seen him since 1971 either. He looked the same, a little heavier, older certainly. Still I would have recognized him as Robert. But today, apparently he goes by the name Bob. Nothing unusual about that is there? Roberts are often called Bob for reasons I don't know. Like Charles being Chuck or Elizabeth being either Liz or Beth. But, it came as a bit of a surprise to me. As I said, I know Robert. Now I'm wondering if I know Bob. Today when I posted my birthday wish to him, I posted Happy Birthday to Robert. I wonder if he will notice. Personally I went from Benny, what I was called throughout my school years, to Ben. That's the name I am known by today. My real name, birth name or whatever you want to call it, is Austin. The only time I can recall that name being used was in school at the start of a new school year with a teacher that didn't know me. Then they would call , Austin Reichart. I would correct them later as I really didn't want anyone to know that name. You know, strangely, even some of my closest friends didn't know that. I guess they weren't paying attention as much as I thought. 

 Unfortunately my high school yearbook has been lost. I can't try that experiment. I did get a picture from my Mom that was taken when I was in the sixth grade. Mom held onto it all these years. It has the year, the grade, and the teachers name on it, but no other names. I had difficulty remembering who was who. I posted it on Facebook and with help all the names were rediscovered. I recorded them on the back. I excused my lack of knowledge on time. Sixth grade was a long time ago. Still there were faces that jumped out at me, immediately remembered for various reasons. Ah time can sneak up on you. Time can leave others behind. I guess what I'm asking myself this morning is, How long remembered. How long will I be remembered by others? How many have already forgotten me? Eventually the majority of us will be lost in time. 

is it fair?

 I read where a federal judge has ruled that requiring only men to register for the draft is unconstitutional. The argument being that men can be denied student loans and federal jobs, if they fail to register on their 18th birthdays.The military has lifted the ban on women in combat, thereby making them equal to men, as least in a military sense. I can understand the logic and grudgingly have to agree with that ruling. To be " fair " women should have to register for the draft as well. I am left with one question for this judge however, what of those that now identify as gender X. What category do they fall in? Does the military recognize gender x? But, that is just an aside to my thoughts this morning. The real question is, should women have to register for the draft? As I stated earlier I have to agree, that to be fair, they should be required to register as well. 

 I find it unsettling somehow, a bit disturbing. I see it as a redefining of a role. I am one that embraces tradition and traditional values. Yes, by todays standards I suppose I shouldn't admit to such thoughts. I do tend to think in terms of the traditional. Male and female. I still believe, regardless of any other thinking, logic, or just plain nonsense, that there are only two genders. There are men and women. Now how those same men and women may feel about their existence is another topic altogether and won't be discussed here. Those feelings have always existed and will continue. The idea that we should validate " feelings " with legislation is what I take exception too. The first amendment to the Constitution, in the very first line, says we shall not establish a religion. Why is that? You can't legislate feelings into fact. Religion, belief, faith, whatever you wish to label it, is an individual thing and can not be validated with law! For that reason I am disturbed when we begin to attempt that and isn't that what all this gender X, and identifying as this or that, is all about? Isn't that an individual thing? It's a feeling not a fact! Fact is there are two genders. 

 Are the genders equal? Of course they are, they are, after all, both human beings. How silly an idea is it that one gender should be superior to the other. It is true that the males, as a general rule, are physically stronger than the females. And male dominance has always been predicated upon that. It's the natural order of things in the animal kingdom, and yes, humans are a part of the animal kingdom. We have developed our brains, at least some have, to the point of not relying upon that dominance to function in society. I believe each gender is equipped to handle certain tasks. That isn't to say that one gender can not do what the other does, within certain very specific limits, but that the design was deliberate. One design is not superior to the other! 

 As to the requirement that women register for the draft; I find it unsettling because it would require them to assume the role traditionally filled by men. Can they do it? Of course they can. Are women prepared to accept that? I'd say they are. Of course traditionally boys were taught they should defend their women. Isn't that the core of the matter? It's true that there are women that need no protection, indeed that can fulfill the role as protector, but they are still women. Perhaps the real answer is to not have a draft at all. The all volunteer force appears to be doing well. The unknown part in all of this is, will women volunteer for military service, in a combat role, when we are actively engaged in a war? Many have done so since 2015 when the Army lifted the restrictions. The fact is those combat roles only comprise about 10% of the jobs in the military. The other 90% have been open to women for decades. Additionally women still have to volunteer for those roles, they are not just assigned to them. If they should not succeed in passing the requirements for that position they are reassigned. That is not the case with the guys however. Guys are dismissed altogether as being unfit for service. And why is that? It is simply because we do not expect every woman to be as physically capable as every man. I'd call it a reasonable expectation. Yes, there are exceptions. 

 Well whatever the case, whatever way you feel about it personally, that is what it is. I do have to agree with that judge, it is discriminatory to the guys. Personally I felt an obligation to serve and did so. If drafted I would certainly have answered that call. I wouldn't have felt discriminated against. I don't feel superior to women. I do believe that I can physically out perform a great number of women the same age as myself. That's what you have in the military as well. They are about the same age, doing a physically demanding thing. If a woman wants to volunteer for that and is capable that's fine with me. Should she be drafted for that? Is that fair? Is it fair to expect women to perform physically on the same level as men? What I'm saying here is men and women should work together as a team. Each player brings different skills to the game. Each player is equally as important. 

inclusive

 I see it all the time. It is becoming more prevalent everyday, or at least it seems like it to me. The latest example is a group of African-American women claiming to be witches. There was a piece on the news about it, I guess for Black history month. Anyway, they were saying how they were going back to the roofs of their ancestors. They felt compelled to follow that path. Other examples I have seen are those claiming ancestral accomplishments as their own. Elizabeth Warren is a current example of making such claims. She was Native American, turns out she claimed that when it was to her advantage to do so. Whether she genuinely believed that because of family stories is questionable. Whatever the case, that is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Making claims based on the past to benefit you today, or in the future. I have a hard time understanding that. Whatever my ancestors were or did has nothing to do with me. I may be proud of their accomplishments but those accomplishments aren't mine. And as far as adopting rituals, beliefs or practices of distant ancestors I find that a bit disingenuous. Looks like you just want to draw attention to yourself.
 What I am talking about here is culture. I don't believe you can inherit culture by virtue of your DNA. If you have no other connection to distant ancestors than that, you don't have their culture. Yes, you can read about it, you can imagine what they must have done, you can imitate, but you can't recreate that culture. Culture is something you have to learn by experience. You can't experience the past, the past is gone. To me it is as simple as that. You hear about cultural appropriation and that's a bad thing. That happens when you claim to be one thing, but are actually another right? Isn't that what the premise is? I believe that term is a misnomer, what they are really saying is racial appropriation. I say that because there are people of every race that have lived in every culture. Granted there may have only been one or two instances in those cultures, but it happened. If I'm not a African-American and claim to be, that's racial appropriation. More correctly it should be ethnic appropriation. Africans comprise many different ethnic groups, not all are black either. There are many different cultures on the continent of Africa. The general idea of what an African-American is probably the biggest misconception out there. Really it should be insulting to those that wish to claim African culture as there own.
 Well, whatever the case may be I am puzzled by the whole deal. I fail to see how anything my distant ancestors may or may not have done has anything to do with me. This is doubly true when those ancestors lived in another century, on another continent. I am of Nordic descent, doesn't make me a Viking. I am of German descent, doesn't mean I should be wearing lederhosen and drinking copious amounts of beer. Those cultures may interest me, but I can't experience that, it was over a hundred years ago. That's the reason we have theme parks! It's called role playing. The very reason if asked I will say I'm an American. I'm not a European American, a German American or Swedish American, I'm an American. I can further tell you what part of America I was raised in. I'm from the East coast, a New Englander. Do I fit in with the stereotypical image of a New Englander? Probably no more so than someone born in America claiming to be a African. I'd say I would be a bit closer seeing as I at least have experience on the continent. But my point is someone born and raised in Maine would surely have different views and customs than myself, born on Eastern Long Island. Don't we think those folks from Maine talk funny? You know what, they think I do. I know, I've visited Maine.
 With all the unrest in the country it seems that folks are looking for stability. Perhaps that is why they are looking to the past. The past does appear to be a bit more rigid. There is a reason for that. The past doesn't change, only our perception of that past does. In short, we want our cake and be able to eat it too. The best cultures, the best societies, are formed when everyone assimilates. Yes, that is obvious isn't it? Birds of a feather flock together. The only issue with assimilation is what? The surrendering of your past in favor of a potential future. The real issue however, the deep seated root of the problem is, someone has to surrender. And that is why each group seeks an advantage over the other. Doesn't matter is it is socially, economically, or culturally. One group has to be the example. One group has to define that to the satisfaction of the others. It is the defining of a culture.
Culture is defined as the customs, arts, social institutions and achievements of a particular nation, people or other social group. In this instance I'm talking about a nation.
 What I find unsettling is this resistance to assimilation. Can a nation survive without that? The answer is no, it cannot. America grew into this marvelous nation by that action. It was written on the statue of Liberty, it was included in our founding documents, all are welcome. The idea was to form one nation. One nation means one culture. We have established our customs, our arts, and our social institutions. That great achievements have been made is unquestionable. It is those achievements that we, as a nation, should celebrate. Those were achieved as a result of assimilation. Everyone working toward a common goal. In the past it was wars, social justice, getting through a depression and putting a man on the moon. All of those things were unifying events. Today all I see is division. The watch word is inclusiveness, but it should be assimilate. I'll include you if you assimilate to my culture. And that, is the bottom line. That is what forms a nation, a culture, and peace among men.
 

making a declaration

 In thinking about yesterdays posting I had to ask myself a question. Shouldn't our laws reflect our morality? I believe that is the case. That's what morality is after all, the distinction between right and wrong. When Jefferson, Monroe and the others composed the Declaration of Independence they clearly stated what they believed to be wrong. Indeed, in the final sentence of the first paragraph they wrote, " they should declare the causes which impel them to do so. " The rest of that document lists the reasons for declaring our independence from Great Britain. The general consensus being, British law is unjust. Although the phrase wasn't popular in the day, I'm certain many were saying those laws were immoral! And what does that mean? They're wrong. The proof lies in that document when these words were penned, " we, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, " and so on. What are they saying? They are appealing to God for the rectitude ( morally correct behavior or thinking; righteousness). They believe they are correct and I have to say I agree with them. They went on to say they have a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence. In short, God's will.
 And so it seems clear to me that our laws were made with that in mind. Morality has to have a guideline doesn't it? In America it is clear that it is the Judeo-Christian traditions that establish our moral values. Traditionally our laws have delineated that. The only problem being, one that I mention frequently, is that you can not legislate morality. Morality is an individual thing. John Adams wrote, " Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. " When we hear of the Constitution we think of it as a body of fundamental principles or established precedents, we think of laws. A constitution is also what makes something up, what composes it. The Constitution of the United States made the United States what it was/is. The question is, has our constitution changed? The answer is no, it has been amended twenty seven times but never changed. Remember the Constitution is the fundamental principles! The amendments came as a result of what? Shifting moral values is what I would say. Not being a scholar I can't back up that statement with references, quotes, facts or journals. I have no footnotes. The first ten, what we call the bill of rights, certainly address moral values. The very first two are discussed often. The second one is under attack these days. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! The statement is clear and concise. The right to defend yourself is a well established precedent among men. Amendments are intended to improve, or make right, a document. Amendments should not detract from the original document. Those first ten amendments, the bill of rights, were done with one purpose in mind, to amend, to make better, to improve , the original document. I'm not so certain that can be said about the rest of them. Politicians being politicians are responsible for that. The eighteenth amendment didn't improve or make right the Constitution. How was abolishing the sale of alcohol supposed to do that? It was a strictly political thing and was subsequently repealed thirteen years later by the twenty fist. That as opposed to the thirteenth, which abolished slavery. I think everyone would agree that was an improvement in that document. In fact it is a sad commentary on mankind that it even needed to be written, to be codified among civilized man.
 Well as usual I have wandered off a bit. I began by thinking about our laws. Our laws have become more about what is allowed than what is prohibited. Seems like a convenient shift in thinking from the original intent. Our constitution was instituted to form these values. A portion of the Declaration addresses this, " Prudence, Indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: " As I listen to the proposals and see the changes being made I have to question their validity. Seems to me that many of these " laws " are implemented for light and transient causes. Seems to me a great number of these " laws " are implemented for the sake of convenience. It is far easier to just allow the action than to prevent, or prosecute. In our declaration we outlined the injustices that were perpetrated against us. In our constitution we delineated our fundamental principles of morality and justice. And what were those documents predicated upon? What moral authority? It's a question each of us have to answer, but sadly far too many fail to even ask. And where has that got us? Indeed as it says in the final paragraph of the Declaration, " with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Is anyone pledging anything, to anyone  anymore? We have laws that say you don't even have to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag! Think about that. 

I'm getting old

 I got up feeling refreshed a bit this morning having taken a day off from blogging. I just fiddled around with my computer and pretty much stayed off social media. In my last blog posting I was thinking about the precepts of the past. As I listened to the news this morning that was brought to the forefront once again. The first news item that jumped off my newsfeed was a story about a bill advancing in the Maryland senate. This bill would allow you to choose " undetermined " as a choice of gender on your drivers license. In the box for gender it would just be an " x " That's correct, my state legislator's are spending time and resources debating this issue. My question is why? You are one or the other! I can't see where there is anything to debate. It's a simple question, what gender are you? I don' care what you feel like, what you may want to be, what you wish you were or any of that! The question is, what gender are you and there are only two choices. If you aren't smart enough to figure that out, you aren't smart enough to drive a car. Simple enough as far as I'm concerned.  Is that another one of those precepts of the past?  Precept #1 there are two genders, male and female. Now we can argue whether God created man, we can argue that Adam was created first, we can argue that Eve was formed from the rib of Adam. What can't be argued is genders, there are two! Always was, always will be. It's a finding backed by science. I don't care if you believe in evolution, creation, big bangs or complete chance, there are two genders, male and female.
 Okay, so I am ranting about that a bit when I hear on the television this gem. Beginning next week the Boy Scouts of America will be accepting applications for an all girl troop. Ah, isn't that what we call the Girl Scouts? Now that bit of nonsense has set me off. I'm a girl, that wants to be a boy, to join the boy scouts, so I join an all girl troop! Am I the only one that sees just how stupid that is! I'm really getting annoyed at this stupid stuff! Yes, yes I know the girl scouts don't have an Eagle scout badge. Their highest award is the Gold Award. It is only earned by about 5% of all Girl Scouts. But apparently that isn't good enough, they want the Eagle Scout award. In years past, up until 1938 that award was called a Eaglet. I'd agree it was a bit of a condescending term. That's why it was changed to Bronze, Silver and Gold. What I don't understand is what the heck is wrong with the Gold award? Why isn't that good enough? I'm a guy and I can't win Miss America but that doesn't mean I should be allowed in the contest. Well, that'll be happening soon if it hasn't already. We will have the non-gender specific contest. Good thing we are still using one piece bathing suits, oh that's right, we eliminated that section of the contest, it was exploiting their bodies, or something like that. But whatever. I'm just sayin' Precept #2 The Boy Scouts is an organization for boys. Precept #3 was Girl Scouts are for girls. Precept#4, gender is not fluid, optional or undecided.
 It is a frustration. There isn't anything I can do about any of this nonsense. All I can do is vote. Then I'm amazed when the very people I voted for sit and consider this nonsense. Who are they fooling? I would dismiss this notion of gender so quick it would make your head spin. I have no time for that. C'mon what's next? How about my height, weight, color of eyes, how about my race? Do I get to just put down whatever I feel like it should be? That should make for accurate identification shouldn't it? Pheww, it's just such a stupid thing. When I had my post office box I had to bring proof of identity to the post office to receive my mail! Proper identification is required! Put a mailbox on the side of the street and the mail is delivered to that box, no questions asked. Yeah, makes sense doesn't it? And then I keep hearing on the news about people receiving less money in there tax returns. What they don't say is, people paid less in taxes this past year so, duh, they got less back. Basically the complaint is, the government isn't just giving me money. Listen up, if you didn't adjust your withholdings over the past tax year the problem is yours. Ideally no one would get a return because no one would overpay. So now you are complaining because the government didn't take too much out of your paycheck! Really, that's a problem?
 This does give me an idea. Maybe I'll start a book about the precepts of the past. You know, what my generation called common sense and logic. Things like, if I don't have a job, I don't get money. Things like, if I don't do what the boss tells me, I'm fired. You know, things like that. What precepts from the past can you think of? I remember when the precept was, if you are a guy you use the guys bathroom and girls used the girls room. It was a rule, those rooms even had separate doors! I read in Colorado they just made it legal to urinate and defecate on the street. That's to make life easier for the homeless folks. Very progressive idea, very compassionate. Well I suppose when you have homeless folks wandering around stoned, pot is allowed there as well we don't care about federal law, they get the munchies and have to go somewhere. Hey, it's cool man, just go where you are. Next week they will be installing poop bags on the light posts like they do in the park for your dog. Now that's progress. Well I have to stop but could go on and on. I'm starting to understand what Grandfather Lester was talking about. I'm getting old. 

precepts of the past

 There is so much negativity in the world that I sometimes find it difficult. I'm not one to just stick my head in the sand and ignore it, There are days I wish I could do that. I require a distraction. I can write, read, watch, and find other distractions but it doesn't always work. There are times when something puzzling just sticks in my mind. I opened my Facebook account and the first story on my newsfeed is about Transgenders in sports. I'm immediately disturbed. I can't figure it out. Just what the heck is this transgender stuff anyway? If a person says they feel like a dog, or a cat, or a cow they would be declared insane! Now, somehow, despite irrefutable evidence of gender, I mean it's right there, plain as day for anyone to see, people are saying they are transgender and that is fine? What the heck is transgender in the first place and where did that term come from?
 Well I did a little research. It seems this concept of transgender is a head doctors way of of saying transference of reality. In short, that's what I feel, therefore that is what I am. I understand that. Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't. I may feel like Superman, but I can't fly! Works that way with gender as well. You are the dna you were born with and there is no changing that. You can't transfer from one gender to another. You mind may go off track, no doubt about that, but that's a misdirection, not a transfer! More commonly we call that a mental illness. But the real question in all of this is why? Why have we as a society decided that this is alright? Why have we decided to just go along with it? Is it simply because that is the easier thing to do? Is it simply because some see a business opportunity. Or is it simply because it is so uncomfortable to talk about?
 Now I know there will be those that will call me homophobic, racist, bigoted and any number of things because I say what I'm thinking. Oh well, that's not important. It isn't a matter of feeling threatened in any way. My sole concern in all of this is why? In 2017 a study revealed that about .6% of the population identifies as transgender. Think about that. If .6% isn't an aberration , what is? Notice I said aberration. What is an aberration? A deviation from the norm is the answer. Therefore transgenders are deviants. Are deviants bad? When we hear that word that is what is implied isn't it? The inference is plain if I call someone a deviant. So, just why are we calling deviant behavior normal? Indeed why are we enabling and encouraging such behavior? We have begun to teach our children that it is a choice? Of course a good portion of our society has now decided that killing the unborn is a choice too. I'd consider that deviant behavior as well. Renaming the crime doesn't change the action. Murder is murder by any name. And why is that being allowed? For convenience is the real answer. A study completed in 2016 reported the following. Reason reported for abortion: rape .3%, incest .03%, maternal life .1%, maternal health .8%, fetal health .5%. 98.3% off all abortions are elective. By any measure it is my feeling that anytime 98.3% of murders are done because of choice, that's deviant behavior. In short, it's crazy. Yet, even when this evidence is presented the hue and cry will go up, my body, my choice! As if that justifies the action. As if that makes it alright.
 Well that's how I feel about that anyway. You may feel differently. I hope everyone thinks about these things. It isn't good to just accept things at face value. Each generation questions the one before it. That is normal. Each generation will reject some of the beliefs of the former as well. Generally we think of it as a good thing. historically speaking. That is when we see the injustices of the past that have been eliminated. We call it progress. What is less spoken of, less recognized, are the precepts of the past that should have been retained. Prior to 1973 the precept was, thou shalt not kill. It wasn't just a Biblical commandment, it was the law of the land. Then we had Roe V Wade. The supreme court ruled you have a right to kill the unborn. Forty six years later and how many support that decision 100%? It's a significant number, but thankfully, still under attack. Will we allow that to become the norm?  It won't as long as there are people like me that are not afraid to speak out. To tell the truth! Truth is, if you were born male, you're male. Truth is, if you were born female, you're female. Truth is, you can't change your DNA! It is what it is. Pretending to be something else doesn't make you something else. Believing that you are something else is a mental disorder. Truth is, killing an unborn child is murder. I admit that these are my truths. I believe they should be yours as well.

Observing

 Happy Presidents day! What are you planning on buying? You have to grab those sales while they're hot you know. Makes no difference if you actually need the item or not, it's a celebration! Hey Lincoln walked a mile to return a penny to a customer, the least you can do is spend one. Washington chopped down a cherry tree, but I don't think that had anything to do with saving money. Well, whatever the case, Happy Presidents day.
 I wrote about this holiday a few days back. It is really nothing more than a paid day off. I'm not complaining, just observing. Observing, get it? It does seem like there is always a sale of some kind taking place in conjunction with our holidays. It makes no difference if it is a national holiday or not, as long as it is a day. I'm thinking days like ground hog day, Valentines day, or St. Patrick's day. We are celebrating something, anything. I noticed that we have created two more unofficial holidays in the last fifteen years or so. Black Friday and cyber Monday. Both of these holidays are dedicated to spending money. We present them as opportunities to save big! That's right, we have made progress. We have figured out how to save money by spending it. Is it any wonder the national debt is counted in trillions. That's trillions, with a T. Soon we should spend our way out of debt. That appears to be the plan anyway. At least one political party in the U.S. thinks that will work.
 Next up on the holiday parade is Easter. They'll be plenty of sales associated with that. Clothes and candy will be highlighted. Oh, they'll be solar powered lights, grave blankets and other religious symbols offered for sale. but the real money is in the Easter Bunny. I'm not sure how much longer this holiday will survive with these millennials. Telling your children that a rabbit delivers eggs, the vegans aren't happy about that, and giving them chocolates, tofu is a better choice, isn't going over well. The religious aspect to this holiday is being rejected by many. Still, the sales will survive all of that. There will always be Peeps! They are gluten and fat free! We can overlook the sugar for one day. Peeps have migrated to every holiday, like shape shifters, you can just never tell where they will appear next. I still prefer the traditional yellow chick, a little stale please. Perhaps there will one day be a national peeps day. A day to celebrate!
 We do live in a consumer driven world. Many have come to believe that you can indeed buy happiness. All you need is good credit. The push now is to get that happiness, for free. If I can't afford to buy it, for any reason at all, you should provide it to me. It's the humanitarian thing to do. I read a short article yesterday that showed me how pervasive this thinking has become. The article concerned people that were getting their cell phones provided through the Obama phone program. Really that program was started by Reagan and subsequently expanded but that's another story. Anyway, these folks that have these phones were complaining that their " apps " weren't good enough and required too much data to operate. The general consensus among those folks was they were being oppressed! Being " poor " they couldn't afford the latest smartphones and unlimited data plans. That was contributing to their plight. How are they supposed to get a job without a smart phone and the latest apps? They should be provided with those things so they can enter the workforce as productive citizens. They are disadvantaged. Yes, that is what the crux of the article concerned. It was an opinion piece in the New York Times. As an amusement I left a comment suggesting you could indeed get a job without having a smart phone and the latest apps. The backlash was immediate and vicious.  I could only shake my head and laugh. Had to laugh to keep from exploding into a rant. I tempered my remarks and the responses I got were fascinating. Did you know you couldn't find your way to work without google maps. After a short while I wandered off. I guess I was what they call a Troll these days. It was an amusement. Those folks are sure easy to rile up. One of them claimed she had a PhD. in astronomy. She said you can't navigate by the stars anymore because of light contamination. What that had to do with a cell phone app escaped me. I asked her if she had ever heard of a compass. They work even in the light and with a flashlight in the dark too, no batteries required. Didn't hear anymore from the Dr.
 Well Happy Presidents day, buy something, the sale is for a limited time. Better hurry. Be safe out there folks.

efficacy

 When your belief requires others to believe it, you might have a problem. Belief should never be a dependent thing, rather it should be independent. It is only when my belief interferes with others that it becomes a issue. That was the premise behind the separation of church and state we so strongly support here in America. The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; is the first sentence of the first amendment.  James Madison wrote that amendment after being influenced to do so by Thomas Jefferson. That Jefferson was influenced by the writings of John Locke is not debated. And what follows is a portion of John Locke writings, " The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgment that they have framed of things." I had to look up the word efficacy as I wasn't sure of the meaning. It means the ability to create a desired result. And that is what the first amendment states as well. And isn't that what was taught in the Bible? Do not be dependent upon God, depend upon your faith to save you. The reason, I suspect, Jesus said " It is also written: do not put the lord your God to the test. " When we have firm convictions or doubts are they not our conscience? Conscience is what drives men to act. Isn't that the very reason when someone wrongs us we often say, that person has no conscience? And isn't that what law is all about? An attempt to define the boundaries of conscience? James Madison wrote, " conscience is the most sacred of properties. " He was saying how that is " property " for it is solely and completely yours, is your most valuable asset. 
 We cannot separate conscience from the man. For clarity when I say man, I mean a human being of any gender or self identified gender, or neutral gender. I just mean humanity in general. For that reason we do have these conflicts in government. Each representative acting according to their own conscience, remember you can't legislate a conscience. Still we require our legislators to follow the common conscience, what we call, the law. The question is, does holding an elected office give you the required efficacy to accomplish that? And there is that word again, efficacy. The ability to produce a desired result. In this case can we expect our legislators to set aside their conscience in favor of the common conscience? 
 That certainly seems to be the issue I see time and again. That's the reason we have executive orders. The President can act as the conscience of the nation when it becomes necessary. George Washington issued the first executive order. He did so because Congress was not in session. Of course, in that time it wasn't easy to assemble the Congress and would take some time to do so. So, Washington issued an executive order instructing Federal officers to prosecute any citizen interfering with the war between England and France. In his farewell address Washington gave some advice about using executive orders, explaining when they should be used. He said, " but let there be no usurpation, for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil, any partial or transient benefit which the use at any time yields. " 
 So, what was the advice from George? The way I read it he is saying use executive orders when it is necessary to prevent evil. They shouldn't be used to fix a temporary problem. They are not a shortcut. Now concerning the latest use of executive power I have to say I believe the President is justified in using this power. Congress has certainly has enough time to act on the situation. Setting aside the wall, barrier, or fence, whatever you wish to call it, I believe illegal immigration is a grave situation and a danger to the Republic. Set aside all the rhetoric and just assess the problem. Thousands of illegal persons entering our nation. We need to do something to curb this. And central to this issue is what? Our conscience. Isn't that what the Democrats/liberals hold up as their banner? It's a humanitarian crisis. Thing is, who is creating this crisis? Why are we responsible for solving it? Why did George Washington order federal officers to prosecute any citizen for interfering in the war between England and France? He didn't want the United States drawn into that conflict is the answer. He didn't take sides in that conflict, his conscience directed him to protect the nation. I don't think we should be taking sides against each other. Is that acting in the interest of the common conscience? No, I don't believe it is. Our enemy is coming from within, just as Lincoln predicted it would. " America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. " ( Abraham Lincoln ) I'd suggest acting contrary to our common conscience is the beginning of decay. Those legislators that refuse to protect our boarders are responsible, acting upon their individual conscience, or lack of it, instead of the common conscience. 

Fortitude

 I was up late last night and as a result slept in. Not getting up until almost 6am feels like a vacation. It's funny how we develop habits. The familiar is comforting. Writing this blog has become somewhat of a habit. I do feel unsettled a bit if I fail to write and post something. But, I'm not addicted, I can quit anytime. I guess that is the difference between habit and addiction. Habit is something you want to do, and do so almost unconsciously, but an addiction is something you have to do. Are all addictions habits? Addiction can be a physical dependence that much is certain, and it's my feeling addiction begins as a habit. Habits are mental things and you can control them. The only requirement being an awareness of that habit. Addiction can be a mental disorder. The thing is a habit is alright but an addiction is bad. That's the perception anyway. We may kick a habit but addiction requires a cure. But what of bad habits? They are bad but don't need curing, they need quitting. Are all habits mental, but all addictions physical? Mental health can affect physical health. Is that why habits can turn into addiction? If that is the case, than addiction is the fault of the user. Not a popular theory though, at least not in today's world. Today we blame the product. Also the reason we blame the gun when someone gets shot. We want to blame the outside forces for the bad things that happen to us. The doctor prescribed a pain medication. I abused that medication and became addicted. Whose fault is that? Some will blame the doctor, some will blame the drug. The truth is only you can control the usage. I don't believe anyone can say they weren't given warnings. I get several pages of information each time a prescription is filled for anything. It's on me to read it. I have done that a few times, makes you want to not take the medication. If nothing else it will give you pause. But whatever, my point is simply that you are warned.
 I'm not certain how I got on this topic this morning. I figure it was just an awareness of habit. It's a routine I follow almost every morning. Coffee, saying good morning to Facebook, check the mail and write a blog. That is usually accomplished by 6:30 or so. Not getting up till nearly six was a change.  I realize that it makes no difference at all. I am retired and the day is my own. Isn't that the point of being retired? The reason we do what we do? Still, I'm thinking that we have become conditioned to routine all our lives and that continues even in retirement. I think that even if we were never subjected to keeping a schedule or a routine we would develop our own anyway. I suspect cave men had a routine. I also suspect cave women were there nagging him! It's all a part of human nature. I'd suggest it is an awareness of " doing the right thing. " There are things that are necessary to do whether we want to or not. We can develop the habit of doing the right thing. It's not easy though because there are the things we want to do. Those things are easy to get into the habit of. But doing the right thing requires another ingredient, fortitude. And fortitude can only come from within yourself. If you lack fortitude, habit can become addiction. Can you become addicted to a good thing? I'd say you can. I don't think it depends upon whether my addiction effects others adversely or not, it remains an addiction. And addiction is self harm. Is there a cure? No there isn't, that's why they call it recovery. What are you recovering? Fortitude is the answer.
 Now what does any of this have to do with me sleeping in? Nothing. But I do feel like I'm failed to do what I should do. A letting down of the defenses, so to speak. A lack of fortitude! What is fortitude?

synonyms:

courage · bravery · strength of mind · strength of character · moral strength · toughness of spirit · firmness of purpose · strong-mindedness · resilience · backbone · spine · mettle · spirit · nerve · pluck · pluckiness · doughtiness · fearlessness · valor · intrepidity · stout-heartedness · endurance · stoicism · steadfastness · patience · long-suffering · forbearance · tenacity · pertinacity · perseverance · resolve · resolution · resoluteness · determination · Dunkirk spirit · guts · grit · spunk      

I hope this sleeping in doesn't become a habit. Habits can lead to addiction. 

Celebrating

 It's rather a sad state of affairs, I only became aware of the upcoming holiday due to the advertisements on television. Presidents day sales! Funny how Presidents day only became a thing in 1971 with the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. Prior to that it was Washington's birthday. His birthday is on the 22nd of February. In 1971 it was decided that Lincoln should also be honored, his birthday is on the 12th. As a result the two birthdays got lumped together, celebrated on the third Monday in February. The fact is the government now says Presidents Day is a day to celebrate all Presidents! In a world of political correctness and inclusiveness could it be any other way? We certainly wouldn't want to offend any dead or living Presidents. Sadly Presidents day is really only a day off from work and an excuse to advertise a sale.Are there any real celebrations attached to this holiday? If there is, I've missed it all these years. No parades, no speeches, no fireworks, no Hallmark cards to show you care enough to send the very best. 

 I can't say that is was a deliberate calculated thing. The third Monday in February will never fall on either Washingtons' or Lincolns' actual birthday. It's just the way the calendar works. I suppose it is a good thing though, that way no one is slighted. I still think of Presidents Day as Washingtons' birthday. Not that I remember the date, I confess I had forgotten that but knew it when I was a kid. I paid attention to days off from school and February was Washingtons' birthday. As I said, it was an advertisement for a Presidents day sale that jogged my memory of that. Sadder still, I think that is all that is being celebrated! You have the day off, with pay, go spend some money. Buy a new car or truck, maybe some new clothes. 

 Celebrate our Presidents past and present. There has only been 45 of them so far. A small select group. Four of them have been assassinated and twenty attempts to assassinate them have taken place. It's a tough job. So come Monday take a minute to appreciate what our Presidents have had to endure. Yeah I know they asked for it, but still. Whether you have just heard the name, some are mentioned more than others, or they served during your lifetime they deserve recognition. It's a thankless job for the most part. It's also a job you may not live through. We should celebrate. 

 The twentieth President of the United States was James A Garfield. Garfield said, " Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. " I'd say that applies today equally as well. Garfield was shot and killed in 1881. One hundred thirty eight years later, not much has really changed. Happy Presidents' day. 

manipulated memories

 We have all heard it said, a picture is worth a thousand words. I have thousands of pictures so that's millions of words. But I have discovered that not every picture captures a moment. Even when you were the one that took that photo,  the moment can be lost. It happens to me more than I like to admit. It usually happens with vacation photos. Just what is this a picture of? I'm certain you have had the same experience. You save the picture however, tucking it away in an album or a box, saving the memory.
 I find it difficult to discard any photograph. I figure each one was taken for a reason and was important to someone, if only for a moment. The saying is a picture is worth a thousand words, but just who has to provide those words? Is it the one that took the picture, someone that was there at the time, or can anyone add those words? I believe all three answers are correct. The only difference is  fact and fiction. In my experience fiction is almost always better than the actual fact of the matter. I've been known to embellish the facts just a little every now and again.
 I wonder if older photographs are more valuable than the new. What I'm thinking about are those photographs taken before this digital age. In the beginning photographs were rare and expensive, few were taken. The subject matter of those images was usually something historically significant. The story was told, over and over again. Then photography became more of a common place thing although you still had to go to a professional. Portraits became commonplace. Those stories became lost over time, just who is this person? I have a few like that, most likely ancestors of mine, but not identified. Home photography became popular, just mail them out for developing. The pictures became more varied, more random subjects, but still limited in number. Today, hundreds of images are taken and I'd suggest the majority of them are forgotten about. How many get deleted altogether? I can't say but I seldom delete any that are of good quality. The blurry ones, the shaky ones or ones with sun spots get trashed. After all, it didn't cost me anything. With the old prints I paid for, that didn't happen, I still have them, along with the negatives! Those negatives are the backup.
 Old photographs have been in the news a lot the last few months. If it is in a picture, it's proof positive isn't it? Seeing is believing. That seems to be the case with the Governor of Virginia. Strange we can't really see who is in that picture though. It is in his year book so it must be him! But with photoshop and all these other available programs pictures can be modified easily enough. As a result you can't believe your eyes. The magicians and wizards in the world have been aware of that for hundreds of years. You can't always believe your eyes, or the story for that matter. Man has developed technology to manipulate memory. That is the purpose of altering photographs. It is a way to change the story. The only one that will know the difference will be the one(s) that were present when the image was captured. If you weren't there, what are you left with? Silence is the answer. That is unless someone else provides the story. Can you believe the story? Maybe, maybe not.
 I don't know just seems to me those old photographs hold more of the truth. Manipulating them was a great deal harder. Things is with the old photographs they were almost always posed. Folks got dressed up, it was an event. Photographs have certainly become a great deal more casual. We see the people as they are, not as they wish to present themselves. And of course, we have video today with audio. That is the biggest change in my thinking. Future generations will not only be able to see my image, but hear my voice. Not that there are many recordings of me, but they do exist. They could, of course, be edited. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is a video worth? Hmm, that's a good question.
  

in the neighborhood

 I saw a sign posted by a local restaurant. It wasn't local to Greensboro but to a place I once lived. The name of the business is familiar to me,  although I don't know if it is the same owners. When I lived in this area it was a mom and pop store. I didn't frequent this store as it wasn't it my neighborhood but would certainly stop in when I was in there's. I have to say I was a bit puzzled by that sign. It was a sign designed to deride Trump. I'm not so concerned about that, everyone has a right to vote and support whomever they choose. What I wonder about is why a business would do such? Is your business so successful that you are not concerned with offending some of your customers? In this instance, unless the demographics have changed significantly since I lived there, I can only see this sign as hurting business. But perhaps it won't, perhaps it will attract the type of customer they obviously want. As I said, everyone gets to choose. After all, it is their business. I was just surprised and a bit puzzled seeing that. As I have mentioned in the past, I don't believe one should wear their politics on their sleeves. Never has this been more evident than in today's political climate. Want your car keyed, paste bumper stickers all over it, want your business boycotted, put political statements in your windows. Reminds me of my Navy days. Guys wearing Ganja tee-shirts and having marijuana leave tattoos wondering why there lockers were being searched, and why they were being drug tested. Yeah, right on brother, the man is just out to get you.
 I remember those little mom and pop stores growing up. Almost every neighborhood had one. They were places were you could get the basic necessities. They opened early in the mornings for the working men. The same group of men would gather there each morning for coffee and to discuss the day. Kids would be dispatched to these stores for a loaf of bread or some other immediate need. The owners were the ones behind the counter for the most part, sometimes their kids. It was the neighborhood that supported those stores through the long winter months. The summer crowd would add the needed income to survive. And it's true, birds of a feather do flock together, and the people frequenting those stores had like interests and political leanings. The later was rarely discussed unless it was in agreement to some foolish proposition from the " other " bunch. Those places were an extension of home in a way. You felt comfortable, important and needed. It was a relationship.
 I arrived here in Greensboro to see the last of that kind close its' doors. The building has since been torn done, replaced by two houses. I didn't get to go there often before they closed up shop. I also witnessed the demise of two local hardware stores. You know the type, old, crowded places that carried just about everything a man would need to make repairs around the house. Those hardware stores were for the common man, what we have taken to calling a do it yourselfer. Back in the day it was unusual to have someone else do it for you. Only the rich folks did that sort of thing. But now, fixing something around the house is a " do it yourselfer " thing. Only the crafty guys and girls do that. Personally I blame Government intervention for the majority of that. All the permits and inspections required makes it impractical for the common man to do anything significant, all they can do is minor repairs and such. And then you have the emergence of Lowes and Home Depot. The do it yourselfers paradise. Aisle after aisle of stuff you can do that makes you look like a real contractor! They will even give you a video on how to do that. The neighborhood hardware store can't compete with that. Shame too, a fella could learn a lot from the hardware man. Ace hardware attempts to use that in their advertising as a selling point. They are trying to be the modern day version of the local hardware. Thing is, they are not centered on a neighborhood, they want a much broader base of clients.
 Times change and business adapts to those changes. I understand that. It is just that I miss the mom and pop stores. I miss that feeling that you belonged. You felt like you were a part of it all not just a customer. This was my store and my neighborhood. Strangers were welcomed, treated respectfully, and talked about when they left. If one of these strangers said something out of turn, something contrary to the norm, it may be met with a quick retort, followed by a chuckle or two. The meaning was conveyed, nobody got offended.
 Yes the times have changed and business with it. What I don't like is the fact that business has gotten so big that the customer really doesn't matter anymore. It's the only way I can see it. Why else would you post blatantly offensive signs in your window? Doesn't make sense to me unless you are so confident that customers don't really matter. It's a strange concept to me. I remember well when the customer was important. And the customer wasn't important only to avoid being sued, they were important to staying in business. The very reason for that old saying, the customer is always right. Well when I read that posting on Facebook about an old mom and pop store that I remembered from my youth it made me sad. Another mom and pop store gone. At least it is gone in my mind if they are choosing to post stuff like that. It ain't the way we did it back in the neighborhood. Or is it that the neighborhood is gone?  
   

Conditionaly offended

 I watched yesterday as the Governor of Virginia apologized to Gail King for being white. As she pressured him more and more he began to make concessions. It was a sight that made me just a little sick to my stomach. What I watched was a man desperate to keep his job. It's obvious his reputation is ruined amid all the cries for him to resign. His continual defense was simply, I'm white and I'm sorry. Gail King loved every minute of it. She got to lord over him like a high school principle over student. She spoke to him in a most condescending fashion. Repeatedly she said, you should have known. She all but called him a liar to his face. All he could do was squirm and apologize.
 Now I'm not saying what he did was right. Yes it was offensive. No he doesn't get excused just because it was 35 years ago. Still, he was twenty five at the time and social sensibilities were not quite as sensitive as they are today. Since that bad decision he has been a pediatric doctor treating every race of child. He has been in public service for 12 years. Not once during those years has so much as a complaint been voiced against this guy. If he is such a racist he sure kept it hidden. And that is the whole deal to me. He is being labeled a racist for what? For wearing blackface, or wearing a KKK outfit? He at first apologized, didn't say which he was, and now denies it is him at all. The whole blackface thing has been done by many famous people and in more modern times than the Governor. I don't hear any uproar about any of that. The pictures are out there and the silence on them is deafening. Maybe we are only offended in certain circumstances. Conditionally offended? Seems to me that is the way it used to be. We called it having a sense of humor. We still do, under certain conditions. When Ted Danson was married to Whoopi and he appeared in blackface, that was a riot. Whoopi thought so and so did many others. Hey, not offensive at all. Why was that, their comediennes right? Bill Cosby doing Fat Albert! Hilarious, great for the children. Tyler Perry has made a career out of being Madea. Then it's okay to offend people, that's their stock in trade. They can't be racists though, no way. Well in the case of Bill Cosby and Tyler Perry they are black so that makes it fine, not offensive at all. Not that I listen a great deal but these rappers say things that are quite offensive but that's called social commentary and you get awards for that. But back to that interview I watched.
 Gail King asked him, did you have black friends. Just what kind of question is that? I always thought telling a black person that I have black friends was offensive. Isn't that patronizing? Sounds like it to me and I suspect it sounds that way to black people. Of course as Gail King pointed out, white people will never understand what it is to be black. I agree, I will never understand what it is to be black. On the same token , Gail King will never know what it is like to be white. Ah, but that isn't a valid argument is it? Why, because the perception is white people get everything, we're privileged at birth. Well, I had whatever my parents could provide for me, that's true enough. Some have more, some have less. I really had no control over that. I got what I worked for and I did meet with obstacles. It's true the color of my skin was never an issue but there were plenty of other things that people are prejudiced against. But anyway, she says did you have black friends. If I were being interviewed I would have told her like I tell anyone that asks, I have friends. My friends are the people that I share common interests with. The color of their skin, their religious beliefs, how much money they have, or what their parents had, means little to me. If I liked them, I liked them. Where some of a different race? Yes, I guess they were, although it wasn't mentioned. The topic just never came up. The time and place I grew up there was no restrictions on people do to the color of their skin. What I mean is, the schools were integrated, there were no places you couldn't go ( either race ) and prejudice was an individual thing. It wasn't sponsored by the state as it had been in the south, I heard about that. I was two years old when Rosa Parks made her stand. But that stuff was in the south, in the past. Now, there were places were it wasn't the wisest choice to go. Prejudice is a two way street. For the most part these undrawn boundaries were observed out of common sense. Besides, as I said, my friends are those I share common interests with. I don't like Rap music, so I don't go to Rap concerts. It's really quite a simple thing to understand. Could I go? Sure I could, but I'm thinking I may meet with some conditional prejudice, may not be the best choice I could make. Can I take a stroll through Compton or Harlem? Sure I can, should I? Again probably not the best idea. Is that because of prejudice? Yup, it is.
  I think I'm like everyone else, I want us all to just get along. I don't believe anyone wants to live with fear, hate, and prejudice. Life is hard enough without being oppressed by others. The thing is until we once again learn to talk to one another, without accusations, the situation will not improve. I believe we had made great strides in America in that regard. Then agitators' knocked things off the tracks once again. Those agitators are the malcontents that believe they deserve special treatment. They come in every race, every color, every religion, every culture. With this latest thing, the whole blackface issue, you have to ask yourself why. Why has this incident from 35 years ago ignited such an uproar? What force is behind this? When was the last time you heard or saw anyone wearing blackface?  There are things happening right now that are far more offensive than that. I don't know about you but it sure makes me wonder. Can offense ever be anything but conditional? I believe it is offensive if you allow it to be. Offense is an emotion. Don't let others control your emotions. That is what leads to the mob mentality. 

entertaining?

 I began watching the Grammy award show last evening, mostly because the wife wanted to. I had heard Dolly Parton was going to be there along with Diana Ross. That was two names that I knew well. The wife turned it on for the red carpet segment. I admit to getting a few good belly laughs at the costumes some arrived in. One looked like she was wearing pool noodles, don't know who that was. I couldn't help but think of the story of the emperors' new clothes. It was obvious to me that a great number of these celebrities have been taken! I understand that this is supposed to " haute couture. " I think that means expensive costume. That's what I saw them wearing anyway, costumes.
 I only stayed up long enough to watch the opening number. That was enough for me. I had no idea what they were singing or who was singing it. I have heard the name Ricky Martin before though. But then again I'm not up on any of this so called music they play today, it all sounds the same to me. I know, my father said the same thing. I make no apology for it, all this rap, is crap! That's my judgement.
 After the first number I went to bed. That was enough for me. I hope whoever that girl in the orange dress was she got well paid. She looks like she has missed a number of meals, just skin and bone. It appeared none of the ladies could afford clothes that went all the way around them. The majority of them were open in the front at least to their waistline. I couldn't help it. I was remembering the television ads when I was a kid for the Playtex living bra. The line used to be it " lifts and separates " They were separated alright, that hasn't changed, the lift? Well guess that went out of style. Somebody said it makes the ladies feel empowered! If that is the case I knew a grandmother once that must have been a nuclear power plant! She was empowered alright. LOL
 Well I'm just an old person not into all this new music. I'm aware I sound like my father. Now I understand what he was talking about. They are some weird looking people. I guess once you have a lot of people admiring you and telling you how great you are, you start to believe it yourself. Then you start primping and posing. I saw a great deal of that on that red carpet. It was quite the costume party. One lady looked like a missile silo. And who was that with the angel wings? One looked like she was ready to go to the Preakness race. Those big hats are all the style there. I saw Miley Cyrus there. Guess she couldn't afford much as she was wearing a suit jacket borrowed from someone. It was way too big! Guess she couldn't afford a shirt either because she wasn't wearing one. She must not like some of the photographers because she kept sticking her tongue out at them. Miley Cyrus, now there's a piece of work.
 The news this morning is saying the ladies dominated the Grammys. They also said last year the ladies were snubbed. Was this year making up for that? Michele Obama was there too. I'm not sure what she had to do with anything. She did say music helped her tell her story, whatever that is supposed to mean. As I said I didn't stay up and listen to the show. I don't know if there were any political statements made. I am hearing about female empowerment, the ladies are taking over. Well okay, if you say so. I just remind myself that all this is supposed to be entertainment. I wasn't entertained for long. The costumes were funny I'll give them that much. Still wondering how anyone got that girl to wear pool noodles to the Grammys. Must be one heck of a salesman. The one lady announcer at the red carpet show kept telling the folks she interviewed, they look dope. Some of them looked like they used dope, I'd agree with her there. You look dope, yo. Entertainers, there are an amusement. 

over time

 Names, places,  and faces. These are the things stored in my mind, sometimes hard to find and at others fresh and clear. I suspect it is that way with all of us. Do we get to choose what we remember? No, I don't think we do. That's the reason we all have things we would just as soon forget. Is the past  what was, or what we remember it to be? That's the paradox of memory, it is what we remember it to be. That doesn't mean it is what others remember, even those that were with you at that moment. Over time our memories do change and it can be unsettling when we realize that.
 Having spent twenty plus years in the Navy I have moved around quite a bit. The home of my youth was left behind. That was another lifetime. While in the Navy if you were staying long enough to retire, to make it a career, you were labeled a " lifer. " Yes, to young men and women twenty years is a lifetime. I can remember thinking so, twenty years, a lifetime. And today as I sit at this keyboard twenty years seems so brief a time. I've seen that three times over.
 Twenty years is generally considered a generation. A lot has transpired since that first Reichart immigrant landed at Castle Garden, New York in 1855. A lot of names, faces and places. How many are remembered? I had to do a lot of work to find a portion of those names. I have been fortunate that a few faces have been discovered as well. The places? I know it began in Greenport on Long Island. Well, at least for the Germans' in my family it did. My grandmother came from Sweden. All the rest of my ancestors came from England as best as I can tell. Some came here very early on, not on the Mayflower, but shortly thereafter. How many lifetimes have passed? How many names, faces and places?
 Like a lot of others I have undertaken recording those names, faces and places closest to me. I don't want them forgotten. I can't explain why that compulsion exists, just that it does. When I was younger, it made little difference to me. I heard others speak of these old people and wasn't interested at all. I'm thinking it was because I had never seen them, there was no name or face connected to them. But then maybe it was something else. Maybe it was as simple as I didn't understand their connection to me. And now, after more decades than I like to think about, I became aware. All those names, faces and places could begin with me! The story is now in the first person. I guess that's what makes it interesting. I'm not certain I like what that says about me. But then again,  maybe it just means I'm trying to figure out where I belong in the big scheme of things. How many lifetimes do we get? I believe life is eternal. Maybe that is why the Bible begins with all that who begat who stuff. I hadn't really considered that before. Could be that knowing your ancestors is important. It just might come in handy, later on. 

Sentiments

 Next month I will travel to Florida for my sister's Celebration of Life. It's a difficult thing to realize that she is actually gone, that I can't just call or text when the mood strikes. Oh, I speak to her everyday and expect I will do so until I can join her. Still the need to say that final goodbye is strong. And isn't that what that Celebration of Life really is? In my youth they called those gatherings wakes, although that was usually associated with the Irish. I can't say I ever attended a real wake but I heard stories about them. Anyway people gathered to mourn the loss, not to celebrate the life. At least that is the way I see it. Like everything else, a subtle change taking place over time. It is something my Mother, near ninety now, doesn't understand at all. In her eyes we will be having a party. It is something outside of her norm. I can relate to that and understand the sentiment. There are things that have changed that I also find unsettling. It doesn't make those things wrong, just different. Social conventions do change over time.
 So I will go to say that goodbye. It is the last formal goodbye. Privately I will never say goodbye, I just say, she you later, hopefully. I do think it is presumptuous to believe I will gain admittance. That's why I pray and try my best to be pleasing in the eyes of my God. I'm hopeful. It's a change I have written about in the past. A lot of folks attend church today as a celebrant whereas I go as a supplicant. My thinking is I go into the house of the Lord as a guest. Proper attire and being attentive to your host is required. I go there asking for favors, not to have a party. As I said, a subtle difference perhaps, and one way is not superior to the other, just different. I do think these celebrations of life are easier to deal with emotionally. The tone is definitely less somber. The same could be said for the more modern worship services. A bit more relaxed, informal so to speak. Sincerity is not linked to formality, I know that, but in my feelings they are. Do you know what I mean by that? I suppose it goes back to my childhood. When I was young you raised your hand to speak in class, you addressed adults as Mr. or Mrs. , you got dressed up for church and you followed the rules! You didn't get to protest or demand explanations. Children were to be seen and not heard. Children did not question adults! And most importantly,  in the eyes of God you are a child. I learned early on when asking adults for something it was best to be polite. Do not assume anything. I didn't go to Dad celebrating, expecting that bicycle, I went contritely and respectfully. I feel the same way about being granted eternal life.
 Traditions and conventions change over time. I think that happens when the younger folks become uncomfortable with them. They change the tradition to suit their sensibilities. It happens slowly, almost unnoticed by many. It is only when you reach a certain age that it becomes evident to you. It is then you have to decide to either accept or reject the new tradition, the new social conventions. It helps to understand you cannot change them, there is no reverting back to the old ways. Do we change our traditions for convenience? I believe a great deal of the time that is the case. Formality requires structure and that can be restraining. Informality, by its' very nature, provides more freedom of expression. If it is informal, it's more about you. That is my impression anyway. And I believe that is why the shift takes place.
 You could say the law is a formality. Laws were intended to be strict guidelines for living within the society. Then we have lawyers whose purpose is to do what? Interpret those laws, providing some freedom from them. Laws can be inconvenient. For that reason they get changed or eliminated altogether. As sensibilities change, so too the law. Traditions and conventions are social laws in a manner of speaking. When they become inconvenient or restrictive, they get changed. Whether it is for the better or not is all a matter of opinion. To those of us that see a cherished tradition being modified it can be unsettling. To the ones doing the changing, it's a good thing, as their feeling is the sentiment hasn't changed. That is what traditions are, sentiments. Are you concerned with displaying the proper sentiment? If so, what is it?

   

tempered

  I keep seeing this commercial on television for some kind of energy bar. They keep calling it an f-bomb. The catch line is, wanna drop a f-bomb? I get that is supposed to be a cute play on words. a little tongue in cheek humor. But what does it really say about society today? Everyone knows what a f-bomb is right? Yes, I'd say for the most part they do, and that in itself should tell you something. There was a day in America when that sort of thing would only be known by sailors,  criminals and used in back alleys somewhere. Now, it's an advertisement! A mainstream expression. An expression most people understand to be inappropriate. So why are we using it in advertising? Oh, it's okay if you don't actually say the phrase, using an acronym is fine. That somehow makes it humorous. Guess I'm just an old fuddy dudy or something, but I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. The problem being, sooner or later some child somewhere is going to ask, what's a f-bomb? Or that child will say, I want an f-bomb. And all of that will be followed by nervous laughter, ain't that cute? No, actually it isn't cute at all.
 As the years go by I am developing a bit of a pet peeve. This pet peeve concerns the use of language. The choice of vocabulary is upsetting to me. Now, any of you that have read my blogs know I was in the Navy for twenty years. Yes, sailors talk like that, for the most part. It's not an excuse but the reason is a basic one. You have a bunch of guys and guys have to be macho. One way to display that is to talk tough. And that is what they called using that language back in the day, tough talk. Toward the end of my Navy career there were women assigned to the ship. In my limited experience a good number of these young ladies adopted the same attitude. Survival of the fittest right? Not sure what is going on now with all this change in social attitudes. I'm certain the Navy is a kinder, gentler place than it used to be. I do know, for a fact, the traditions I enjoyed are now called harassment, and punishable. Times change I suppose and sensibilities along with it. I do believe there is a time and place for everything. I don't think a television commercial is the time or place for that phrase/acronym. To me it is tacit approval to go ahead and use that expletive, hey, it's funny. I find it unsettling for a reason I've written about in the past. It's a little thing called polite company.
 What is polite company? It is a precept whereas you extend courtesy and respect to others. This is especially true with those that are not family or close friends. For that reason you do not discuss touchy topics that may inflame others, ie: religion and politics, and you choose your words carefully. Rude, crude and offensive terms are not used. These simple rules help in controlling your temperament. In short, you don't lose your temper nearly as quickly. But it seems to me people start out with a foul temper these days. That is the impression I get when the sentence is prefaced with an f-bomb or some other foul expletive.  I find it difficult to take those people seriously. You know why? Because that language is the language of bluster. Yeah, bullies and the insecure like to use those words to show how tough they are. I'm never impressed, wasn't back in 71 when I joined the Navy, not impressed today. That's not to say those folks aren't intelligent, I've known a good many that are indeed quite intelligent and informed, but first impressions are what we act upon. Generally speaking, if you start conversations with that sort of language I will tune you out rather quickly. It really doesn't make you sound intelligent and sends the wrong message. It has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with demeanor. Want respect, act respectful.
 Like I said, guess I'm old. I just don't get it. I hear people decrying how offended they are by everything. A statue offends them. History offends them. And their response is a string of expletives, expression and filth that is designed to offend others! Protests, riots and social unrest because they are offended. The response, trying to be more offensive than offended? I could insert a string of acronyms here, but I won't. By doing so I would be assuming you understood them. Rather insulting to think that. I'm in polite company here and I mind my manners. I really do try to temper my words. Like a good knife, tempered correctly, words can cut cleanly and hold their edge.