compromise and common sense

 I was recently asked why I thought the constitution of the United States was written in such broad terms. Why was it left open to interpretation? Was it a deliberate thing by the framers of that constitution? I began to think about that, to consider the question. Everything we say or write is open for interpretation simply because people tend to read or hear what they want, not necessarily what it says. That's a part of human nature I believe. A psychologist could explain that, or a salesman!  That's how you wind up buying a timeshare, you only hear the part you want to. But back to the question at hand.
 The constitution of the United States was written during the Constitutional convention from May to September of 1787. It contained just 4,543 words, including the signatures. Although I'm certain that Monroe, Jefferson, Franklin and others had ideas about what it should be prior to that convention, it was drafted through compromise and common sense. It was a convention remember, conducted in a formal and organized fashion. There was much debate about each word and paragraph. Each representative was acting in their own best interest, of that you can be sure. Politicians haven't changed much over the centuries and I expect that will remain a constant. Following that draft 85 articles were written and published urging ratification of that document. We know them as the federalist papers. Later, when the bill of rights was written an additional 3,048 words were added. That includes all 27 amendments. So that's a total of 7,591 words.
 That sounds like a lot of words doesn't it? Well here's some perspective on that. The U.S. tax code, know as title 26 is about 6550 pages long. That's just the code itself, not the regulations. In 1911 that code was 11,400 words. That's almost 4000 more words than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights combined! In 2010 title 26 contained about 3 million words! That's correct three million. But, it gets better, that's just title 26, the code itself. Factor in the regulations governing that code and the number swells to 10 million! Would you say that includes any compromise or common sense? I'd say a whole lot of compromise myself, we call them loopholes mostly. Who placed them there? Politicians that's who in response to the wants of their constituents. In short, to garner support and get votes! Does it make sense? Only to the one benefiting is my response. No, it isn't " common " sense at all. Common sense as in, we all have that in common, doesn't exist in the tax code. But I believe the framers of the constitution attempted to write that document incorporating common sense and that's the very reason it was written in the fashion that it was. I expect those folks would find it hard to believe so many in today's world lack that commodity! I expect they would be shocked to discover what some folks have taken their words to mean? That group of men, all learned individuals, debated those words for 116 days! That's how long the convention lasted. They didn't take a recess, they continued on the job for the entire time. They made five major compromises. One of those five was the electoral college. That was heavily debated, for the same reason it is being debated today. Still, common sense prevailed and the electoral college was included as a necessary component to the republic. Indeed that is what that constitutional convention accomplished, the establishment of a Republic! Yes, it was accomplished utilizing democratic principles but it was a republic that was formed. The founding fathers were adamant about that. There would be no compromise on that.
 Now the King James version of the Bible contains 783,137 words. Those words include the law, the regulation of those laws, instructions on how to comply with the law, along with words of encouragement and comfort. A very efficient use of words in my opinion. Mostly common sense and compromise. The common sense is summed up nicely with what we call, the golden rule. The compromise part we often call, sacrifice. It's those instruction to think of others before yourself, or at least to love your neighbor as you love yourself, in equal portions, that is the compromise. In return we get eternal life! Not a bad deal at all. But how have those words been interpreted over the centuries? I'd say those words have been used to further agendas, agendas contrary to the meaning of those words. The same can be said about the Constitution of the United States.
 So why was the Constitution written the way it was, open for interpretation? Well, I think they did the best they were capable of. I don't think they ever imagined a time when so many " educated " people would lack so much common sense. I don't believe they ever imagined a time when there would be no compromise! Indeed, in their day a failure to compromise could lead to a violent outcome! Action would be taken, there was no recess, no filibustering! You had to make a choice and either defend that choice, or reach a compromise.
 I really don't think the founding fathers, the writers of that document, could imagine what politicians are like today. Remember, in their day it was a part time thing. It was something done to benefit everyone. They weren't getting paid! They were patriots in the truest sense of the word. They were well aware that they were risking their lives and their livelihoods. Read a bit about what happened to the members of that constitutional convention later on. Many suffered extreme hardships and some death. They didn't compromise their beliefs. They exercised common sense in the drafting of that document. And that's what is missing in the legislature today, common sense. And compromise? There will be none.   

inequality

 Income inequality, a term I hear a lot about these days. The ones talking about it the most are the ones that have money, the politicians. They hope to stir up the " poor " people in an attempt to gain their votes. Now these politicians aren't advocating sharing their money, no, no, no. they are advocating sharing your money! And how do they propose to do that? By making you give more of your money to the government. In that way those same politicians can secure a larger part of the pie for themselves while fulfilling a promise. You get more " free stuff " and they get more income. It's a win-win.
 What are we really talking about though, with this income inequality? Really we are talking about disposable income. Yes, the amount of money we can just throw away, it's disposable! We Americans, as a general rule, have enough money for the essentials but we don't have enough to throw away and that needs to change! Some are saying Socialism will fix that! Yes, if we all put our money into one big pot everyone gets more. Well because the government will surely distribute it equally among the citizens, non-citizens, and anyone else that is in the country! Everyone is equal! That's what socialism does. The inequality problem is solved, everyone has the same amount of disposable income, everyone is happy. No more of the neighbor can buy a luxury car but I have to buy a compact. No more people eating in those fancy restaurants while I have to eat hamburgers. And those people with designer clothes, ha, we will all wear the same thing, that's socialism! That's equality.
 If you don't have to pay for it, it's free. Isn't that the thinking? Now if I don't receive the money in the first place, because it has been deducted from my wages, I don't have that money to spend. If I don't have the money to spend, but receive a service from the government, that took that money in the first place, the service is free! That's what some folks seem to believe and what the politicians are trying to convince you of. Of course if the government takes your money before you can spend it, that does limit the amount of disposable income you will have. But, we are all equal in income right? No government has ever provided all essential goods and services to every citizen! That's a simple fact. You may get " free " healthcare, education, and housing assistance. Maybe you receive some financial help from the government, basically other peoples money, and today in America you can even get a " free " cell phone. But still, there will be inequities! You know why? Because people will always want what the neighbors have. And that is what we are talking about with income inequality. We are not talking about essentials no matter how much the politicians would have you believe that.
 Really it is just common sense. Yes there are poor people and there are rich people. Always have been and always will be. It doesn't matter if the rich folks are ordinary citizens or politicians, there will still be the haves and the have nots. Now if the government were to provide everyone with every essential product or service, all in equal amounts, including disposable income, who is going to work? That's what I want to know. Where is the incentive for me to go to work, to prosper, to succeed? I can just set home, get everything for free and have the same amount of disposable income as everyone else. After all, if you have more money to spend on the things you want than I do, you're rich. That's how we measure that isn't it? Wealth is measured by how much can you throw away.
 Looking at the whole consider this; in America we spend an average of 3.2 billion dollars a year on wrapping paper! That's 3.2 billion dollars thrown in the trash every year. The average American will spend 700 dollars on Christmas gifts, things to give away. Between Thanksgiving and New Years Americans will generate about one million tons of trash, to be thrown away. So when I hear about income inequality I think about all of that. What I hear is the politicians and others would have us believe that the rich should give more of their disposable income to the government so the government, in turn, can give it to the people. Of course there will be an administrative fee for all of that. Costs a lot of money to run a charitable organization you know. On average charities take 15% for administrative costs, 10% for additional fundraising expenses and 75% go to the actual cause. Keep in mind the government does oversee charities in the United States and government finds those numbers acceptable. How much would the government decide is acceptable to itself? The IRS currently employs 74,454 full time employees just to collect your taxes! How much overhead is that? How much more will be required if the government were to expand in the distribution of monies? You would have to have an army of people to oversee that, wouldn't you? That's socialism.
 Having said all of that I think I can condense it a bit. It is the old concept of separate but equal. The government will be separate from the people. The government is not of the people, by the people anymore. The government is just funded by the people, the government will tell you how to spend it. On the upside, everyone is equal. Whether they are equally happy or miserable isn't the concern here, just so long as we are equal. No inequality exists. Utopia. We can all buy the stuff we want, well maybe.  

what are you selling?

 I've written about this sort of thing before, it is a recurring theme with me, but I am compelled to bring up the topic once again. It's what I call polite company. Now I'd say being on national television, participating in a political debate, is an example of being in polite company. Now I didn't watch either Democratic debate, I'm waiting for the field to narrow out some. But I have heard sound bites from both. I heard candidates calling President Trump all kinds of names, pathological liar and a fraud. I'm not surprised by any of that although I admit to being disappointed. Disappointed that we have degenerated to that level. Then I hear Pete Buttigieg in response to a question saying he wonders who Trump has pissed off. That raised my head! Are you having a debate on political issues or are you hanging out in some bar? I mean, is that the language of an educated man? Oh, Pete is supposed to be the darling, Harvard, Oxford, and gay! Apparently he hasn't learned how to conduct himself in a civil fashion! Yes, I know, Trump says or has said the same or worse , much worse, but that has no bearing on the topic. I'm talking about conducting ourselves in a civilized fashion, in polite company. That includes everyone. 

 Now I understand political candidates want to throw verbal spears at one another, that's part of the game. Verbal sparring has always been the stock and trade of politicians. I just wish for the days when it took some thought, some intellect, to counter your opponent. Seems like we have just decided to go with the playground mentality, I'll just call you names and use language I've heard some grownups use when they were mad! That ought to work. Well, if you want to relate to me, to get me to listen to something you have to say, it isn't going to happen when the language you use is vulgar, crass and juvenile. If I want to hear that I'll go to the movies or a bar on the waterfront! I hear that Pete wants to eliminate the electoral college. In short he favors dismantling the Republic. I have to disagree with him on that one, wonder if that pisses him off? Do you see how that sounds? Doesn't sound very nice does it? 

 The second edition of the Oxford English dictionary is twenty volumes containing 171,476 words and 47,156 obsolete words. Out of all those words Pete Buttigieg chooses " pissed " to express his feeling. Man has been to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and that's the best he has to offer? Or is that what he chose figuring the average voter will understand that? Personally I'm insulted and a bit offended by that choice. And that goes equally with all the candidates, regardless of political affiliation. I just see this as further evidence of the degrading of our society. Vocabulary is certainly indicative of a societies morals. That's why mamma told us all not to cuss! The Bible says you shouldn't swear to anything. Take that to mean anything you want but swearing, cussing, using foul and vulgar language is a reflection of you and your moral compass! When done in public, in polite company, I'd suggest it serves as a beacon. Yes, you will get attention. Hey all advertising is good advertising isn't it? That's what they say. But what is it that you are trying to sell? That's what makes the difference. Junk in, junk out! 

 

invited?

 It's something I have mentioned before, but it occurred to me again last evening as I watched the television. A commercial for some restaurant or another came on and proclaimed how they love their guests! They live to take care of their guests! And I thought, guest?, who charges their guests? If I have to pay I'm not your guest. I may or may not leave a gratuity. That depends upon whether I am grateful. And that usually depends upon the bill.
 Now I know they say that stuff to make you feel welcome. I guess I'm just used to the slogan, the customer is always right. That's what I heard growing up. I was referred to as a customer. Customers were appreciated, customers were encouraged to return, but we weren't called a guest. You had a guest come to your house or maybe a rented facility of some kind. For some reason it bothers me. Maybe it is because of all the renaming of everything these days. The media is especially guilty of this. And they do it gain your attention. Consider this, an agency of the federal government is attempting to apprehend illegal aliens in our country. How is that reported? ICE is rounding up families for deportation! Notice the term, rounding up, to imply what? Notice they say families, why? The only accurate part is deportation. And then the media reports there are sanctuaries. The truth is they are hideouts! The truth is, these sanctuaries are just harboring criminals. That's the truth of the matter. Trump is putting children in cages! So you're saying a chain link fence used as a divider, a fence, is a cage! OMG, look at the number of cages there are in America if that is the standard. Our children go to school inside a cage!
 Well whatever the case I'm getting annoyed with this nonsense. I wish we would just go back to the old way. Call a spade a spade! OMG, I'm not supposed to say that anymore either. There are two genders. Two and only two. If I am paying you for a service, no matter what that service may be, I'm your customer! I'm not your guest unless it is free. Hey, I'm not being fooled one bit by that. If I fail to pay you I'm certain you will take action against your guest, like calling the cops. If I were truly a guest it would be no problem, come back anytime, my treat. Or do you charge your guests when they come to dinner or for drinks? And why do they call it a business license, why isn't it a guest license? You're licensed to have guests. Aren't guests invited? I think they are. When I decide to enter a business that isn't an invitation, it's a decision. 

belief creates reality

 My wife told me of a story she read on social media. This story was of a woman that was clinically dead for 27 minutes. When she was revived she says, heaven is real. She had seen the pearly gates, with Jesus standing there. She isn't the first to say such. Didn't they make a movie about that? I confess to having heard something about it but I'm not a movie goer so I just don't know for sure. I'm also not one to be seeking evidence or testimony regarding the existence of heaven, or hell for that matter. What is important to me is what I believe. That's simply because belief creates reality, at least that's my thinking on all of that. The real struggle, the real doubt, lies in truly believing. And only you know that truth!
 Is that the message from God? Belief creates reality? If you truly believe, really believe, you will receive what is promised. Jesus did say, those who believe in me shall not perish but have eternal life. Mohamed said, no one of you will have faith until you believe in me more than your father. Another statement of belief creates reality? I don't think we can deny that belief creates reality for ourselves. How else to explain what others think and support as truth? Even when we judge the other person insane, we must recognize that it is their reality. We all deal with that every day. There are times when we get our feelings hurt although no harm was intended. It's very real to us but vague to another. We are told to employ empathy to understand the other persons' belief. I'd suggest that in the majority of instances we employ sympathy instead. Unless we ourselves have experienced the same injury it can be no other way.
 Now I believe our soul is real. I also believe our soul is energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed, only transformed from one state to another. It's a basic principle in physics. It has been proven time and again by experimentation and practical application. Man doesn't search for a way to create energy, man searches for ways to transform it. That being established I see no reason that our mind, which surely contains the soul, could not transform to whatever our belief may be. If you believe in heaven and hell, that's the reality you will experience. Do you believe you will go to heaven, or do you have doubts? In your own mind, are you worthy? If you believe in nothing, no continuation, that's what you will experience. Seems logical to me. I believe we are responsible for our actions. Even if it is only our mind, our soul, our energy, that holds us to account, we are accountable. Our energy will be distributed, transformed in some fashion. Perhaps we can control that, by belief. Perhaps belief creates reality. It works that way here, on this plane of existence. I see no reason why it couldn't work that way in another.
 Do heaven and hell exist in spite of belief or because of belief? That is what I'm thinking about. That goes for every other religious belief in an afterlife or lack of one. Is there life after death? It's a question I often consider, mostly wondering if I will know it. I mean, will I know that I died? That would require knowledge of whatever life came before. Energy, as I said, can not be created or destroyed so my energy had to have been here before. Or did it? Perhaps when that energy is transformed the memory is lost in the transformation. It could happen with some and not with others, hence we have mediums, psychics, and others that claim this prior knowledge of life, or the ability to communicate with the dead.
 In the end however I think all we have is belief. I'm thinking I'm overthinking the whole deal. My Bible tells me all I need to do is believe. Well, believe and obey the law. I do need to make an honest effort to obey the law. Sure I'll be forgiven for my shortcomings, my God is a merciful God, but I have to be honest, I have to believe. My belief should be based on the promise, those who believe in me, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Belief creates reality. Perhaps in the next life, reality is belief. 

a nation of law

 I can't help but wonder. How have we reached a point in America where enforcing the law is news. What I'm thinking about is ICE. The president has stated that illegals will be removed from the country. In short, the law enforced. Yet, I hear much protesting this on television. Other law enforcement agencies refusing to work in cooperation with ICE, various groups providing sanctuary, and generally impeding efforts to enforce the law!
 Now these illegals have already had due process. The names are on a list and they have been notified. Many of these same people failed to appear for scheduled hearings, violating the law once again. Not much effort on their part in my opinion. All they had to do was show up but they didn't. Now I hear they are scared. Well you should be. You are going to be deported! Whose fault is that? Yours. You sneak into a country, you are then given an opportunity to present your case, often a year or more after the fact, and you fail to even appear. That's why your name is on that list! Your fault.
 Yes the United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Legal immigration! And that is the issue at hand. No one is saying we will not allow immigration. What we are saying is, it must be done legally. I fail to understand how that became an issue. America is a country of laws! John Adams proclaimed we are a nation of laws, not men. But now the law is being brushed aside. I'm hearing major news networks supporting this. Why? Why is enforcing the law such a terrible thing? Is this law so terrible? No, it is basically the same law we have always had, if anything, it has been made more permissive. Every opportunity is afforded to these folks. We are even providing legal counsel! Now these " immigrants " say they are feeling panic! No kidding, that's the result of  not following the law and realizing the ax is coming down. There are consequences.
 I just can't understand why enforcing the law is such a problem. No one is advocating for the immediate return of people to their home countries. The " round up " as the news likes to call it are those that have failed to appear for their hearings. They are the ones that are in the system but failed to uphold their part. You can't obtain what you want, legal status, by ignoring the law! It's not a difficult thing to understand. But I know the real problem. The real problem is, I want it now! These immigrants want to be able to just waltz into my country and immediately receive benefits! That's what they come here for in the first place. They want it now! That's the issue. What's worse is there are those in this country that would do so. Never mind about out own citizens that are homeless, hungry, disabled or struggling, divert our resources to the illegals. Yes, there is a limited amount of resources! The United States of America can not support the entire population of Latin America! That's not even taking into account those from other countries that wish to immigrate here. That is why immigration is limited! What don't people understand about that? Immigration is limited to LEGAL immigrants.
 So let me get this straight. Enforcing the law is now wrong! If we don't like the law, we don't agree with the law, or the law scares us, we just ignore the law! What happened to change the law? Oh, that's right, it takes too long. We want it now. We demand it! We aren't in your country legally, we aren't complying with the law, but we expect your full support. Amazingly there are those in my country providing just that. Amazingly these same folks aren't denying the validity of the law, that the law is enforceable, no, in fact that is the problem. The federal government intends to enforce that law! Think about that. How did we arrive at a place where it is wrong for the government to enforce existing law? If we are not going to be a nation of law, just what are we a nation of? 

Groovin'

 I realize I'm old and out of touch, it happens. But I do listen to the evening news most days and have teenage grandchildren, along with social media and the internet. I'm not a hermit. But I was wondering, do the kids dance these days? I mean I haven't heard about any new dance crazes lately. I was never one much for fads but was aware of dances when I was a kid. Seemed like a new one came along every few weeks! Now I can't recall hearing about any new one. Last thing I remember was people were doing a dance Gangnam style. That was something made popular in a genre called K-Pop. I learned about K-Pop through a granddaughter. Apparently swooning over pop stars is still a thing with young girls, I don't think that will ever change.
 Seriously though I wonder what the kids do these days. We had dances. Whether it was just a party at a friends house or a bigger setup, we went to dances. I don't hear much about that anymore. Yes, the school still has dances, those formal occasions that are a right of passage in a way. I expect that will go by the wayside one day as we wouldn't want anyone to feel excluded or uncomfortable. I say that because a county here in Maryland has voted to eliminate class rankings. There will be no class valedictorian or anything like that. They don't want the lowest performing students to feel marginalized. Well because performance shouldn't be considered when valuing a persons achievements. You know, just like in the real world where as long as you show up for work how well you do your job doesn't matter! And what if they want to go to college? A lower class ranking could influence the boards decision on admission. No ranking, no judgement. But I'm wandering off the subject a bit.
 Do the kids have parties today or do they just " hang " out? I remember hanging out with my friends, adults called it loitering. It was considered a path to trouble. If you were allowed to just hang around, doing nothing, you must likely were up to no good. My Grandmother always said, " idle hands do the devils work " and there is a great deal of truth in that statement. Combine those idle hands with access to the internet and I'm thinking that can be a recipe for real trouble. The internet can surely provide more " bright " ideas than I was able to think up, or my friends for that matter.
 I don't know but I don't hear much dance crazes anymore. Now all I hear is they are eating tide pods or running alongside moving vehicles while taking a selfie. The kids take a lot of selfies! They also seem to send a lot of pictures to one another, sometimes not so appropriate a picture. When I was a kid we didn't even think about that. It was a different era that much is sure. You did have to send your pictures out for developing. It was believed that any inappropriate pictures would be turned over to law enforcement agencies, or at least the druggist would see them because they checked. Not sure why I believed that but I did. Well, like I said, the only crazes I hear about these days involve the kids doing something stupid. Of course, I realize my parents thought what I was doing and the other kids, was pretty stupid. Rock and Roll music, you can't hear yourself think with that noise, and you can't dance to it. That's why we just jumped around, flailing our arms. LOl. It's true that if I tried to dance like today I'd probably get hurt. That's alright my generation invented cool. Still the best music and dancing ever made. We were groovy, fact is, we still are. The kids call it wrinkled though, but it's groovy.    

belief without deceit

 I am in the habit of reading my blogs to my wife before posting them. I do like to hear it out loud. I'm not always pleased with what I hear but seldom make revisions. I suppose that is because it is more of a habit to write something than an actual desire to say anything meaningful. I'm feel like I'm just talking to myself most of the time. That's alright with me but I am pleased when I receive comments from others saying they enjoyed the read. Yesterday after reading my post the wife and I discussed it a bit. I'm not always clear in what I am trying to say and at times it requires a further explanation of the thought that inspired the post. That was the case yesterday morning.
 The thought I had was having something to believe in. I do wonder about the next generation and their having something to believe in. I mean they are told they can't trust the news, they can't trust social media, they shouldn't trust their fellow man and that belief in God is optional. For those reason I thought, what do they have to believe in? Are they simply to believe in themselves? Now, believing in yourself is a good thing, an essential ingredient to a successful life I won't deny that, but you also need something more than yourself. Without something more, without some support system, we will all fail. But by support system, I don't mean charity and automatic forgiveness for any missteps we may take. Along with believing in ourselves we require personal accountability. True happiness, true contentment is obtained through personal accountability. Yes it is wonderful to receive recognition and accolades from others, no doubt about that, but it isn't what will sustain you when you are alone. And we are all alone at some point or another, there is no escaping that. That's why people abuse drugs and alcohol, they are attempting to escape themselves. What we think, what we feel, and what we believe is our reality!
 As for me I was taught that what you do when no one is looking defines who you are. I was also taught you have to be honest with yourself. There are times when that honesty can be painful, self inflicted, and brutal. There are also times when that isn't the reality, it's your reality, but not reality. Determining the truth is the struggle in life. The truth isn't always what we believe it to be, but, it is always what we believe. That's why it is so important to have something to believe in other than yourself. It is important to teach our children to believe. True happiness isn't reward based, it isn't dependent upon what we receive. Happiness stems from belief, true belief, belief without deceit! The truth is we can't deceive ourselves, we know the truth, it is just a matter of admitting to that truth. And you can't just forgive yourself, forgiveness is not resolution. That's where personal accountability enters the picture. We need to hold ourselves to account! Belief is a function of that process. You have to believe there is good and evil, right and wrong, reward and punishment.
 I'm not certain I made my thought any clearer with this explanation. Maybe I am making it too complicated. I'm concerned that our children may not have anything to believe in.The removal of belief will result is the loss of hope. Without hope life is pretty bleak. That's when we engage in all manner of behaviors contrary to what we know to be right. 

the times

 As I scrolled down my page on Facebook, or is it a timeline I don't know the difference, I couldn't help but notice all the fabricated stories. These stories aren't from my friends but from the various news agencies and such that post. Some are just so obvious I have to laugh. It reminds me of standing in line at the grocery store and reading the headlines on the National Enquirer. Eighty five year old great grandmother gives birth! And then I notice this stuff is being posted by the New York Times. Well okay maybe not that extreme, but some come close. CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC and a few others are not much better. It's almost like it's a competition to see you can fool the greatest number of people into believing this stuff. To say it is difficult to find a trusted news source is an understatement. It all depends upon your political bent. We read it, we hear about it and we digest it everyday, fake news! It's a real issue. They call it fake news but really what it is lies, just straight out lies. It's not even a personal opinion, it's just a straight out fabrication to attract readers. What the common man labels as Bullshi*.
 I can't help but wonder where some people get the crazy ideas that they do. Take someone like Alexandria Occasio- Cortez as an example.Some of what she proposes comes straight out of fantasy land. Surely she doesn't expect anyone to take her seriously, does she? No more airplanes, we will build a bridge to Europe! And we will travel there in electric cars. Yeah, I can see that happening. Yet she was elected! Elected by whom? Surely it wasn't an informed electorate, at least an electorate in the real world anyway. Just what newspaper and news outlets were they listening to? But then I scrolled down Facebook and saw it. Mass misinformation twenty four seven and surely that is affecting these folks. I understand that the younger folks don't use Facebook that much, it is a platform for us old people but I suspect the same thing is happening across all avenues of social media. I don't tweet but from what I've heard of twitter it's a real hotbed of misinformation. Or at the very least a tirade of opinions from some very famous people. We tend to listen to famous people for reasons not fully explainable. I mean why agree with a singer about a political opinion, or a athlete about the world economy? But it has always been that way, that much isn't new. What is new is the immediate availability of those opinions.
 Yes there are those that subscribe to certain news outlets as reliable. Those that believe the New York Times publishes nothing but unbiased, truthful articles backed by hours of research. Their reputation is beyond reproach. But is it? I don't think that is the case anymore, I do think a great number of people take exception with the Times these days. I also believe they are justified in doing so. Journalistic integrity has been tossed aside in favor of circulation. The object being to keep the paper alive as long as possible. Problem being, it's a dinosaur. No longer does the Newspaper hold the prestigious spot in distributing information that it did. That goes for all newspapers, not just the Times. Now a person may hear the view of five or six newspapers within an hour of each other. They may also hear five or six different versions of the same story. I'm beginning to believe it is all just too much, it's doing nothing but causing confusion.
 What bothers me is that I'm wondering about the next generation. I'm thinking they are going to have serious trust issues growing up. When you can't believe what you read or hear 90% of the time I can see no other result. Is that why we are seeing some of the things we are? Is that why people are starting to believe misinformation? If you can't determine the truth what else can you expect? A woman is pregnant. Is she going to have a baby? That depends doesn't it? Isn't that what some people believe today? If she chooses, she won't. If she doesn't make a choice, she will. Truth is, she will if she chooses not to kill the baby first but the misinformation is, it's a choice. I'm a male, I can tell that by the construction of my body, I look down, yup, I'm a boy. But I don't feel like a boy so I decide I'll be a girl because I know what girls feel like, even though I'm a boy. I must be a transgender! Truth is a transgender person is a person that is confused about what gender they are and they are trying to change that. They can't. You can't rearrange your DNA, those chromosomes are what they are! I'm thinking the next generation is in for a rude awakening one day! One day they are going to find out the truth. At least I hope they do.
  Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'

I'm thinking Bob Dylan was onto something when he wrote those lyrics. Maybe he did sell his soul to the devil! I question though if it is the times that are a chagin' or is it the people? People adapt to the society in which they live. Conversely people change the society. Could be we are all getting just a little too comfortable and that's why we changed the rules. Eliminate the truth and just go on feelings. If it feels good, do it! That's the modern philosophy.

memories are better

 I see the advertisements all the time. I see meme's on Facebook. Connect with your old buddies, you served together, sign up and relive the good times. Well all I can say is, it wasn't all that. Now, I'm a retired Navy man and maybe it would have been different if I were a ground pounder or Marine. But I spent the greatest majority of my time, on a ship, at sea, with a bunch of guys that just wanted to go home. Yes I had a few friends, very few, that I would like to see again. Still, for the most part being in the service was like being in high school. You had your little cliques, your bullies, the goody two shoes, the apple shiners and those that were just plain annoying. So, what I'm saying is, it wasn't all that, not by a long shot.
 Now it could be it was me. I have never been what you call the popular kid on the block. Apparently the problem is I'm a little too direct and opinionated. I agree, I have opinions on just about everything and I am not afraid to share them. Whether you want to accept them isn't my problem, all I can do is offer. Memories are generally better than the reality. That's what those websites and advertisers are counting on. I do have some good memories of those days, mostly memories of coming back home after the voyage! This Hollywood image of shipmates is just that, an image. Same as the image of the sailor. A girl in every port, drinking and having a good time. Yeah, that's what it was like alright. Just a rollicking good time.
 Don't misunderstand me, I stayed in the Navy and served for twenty years. I am proud of that service, that accomplishment. It wasn't easy, mentally I mean. Talk to anyone that has served and they will tell you about that. You are counting the days till, " I'm out. " I expect the other branches had a similar tradition. In the Navy you had a " short timers chain " attached to your key ring. Depending upon the length you might be taking a link off every month,week, or day! On your last day, at morning muster ( formation  ) all they will see of you is your boots and a hat! That's because you are so short! If you stay long enough and retire, you do get an opportunity to say a few parting words at your retirement ceremony. I doubt anyone remembers anything you say. I doubt many will even remember you!
 That's what I was thinking about when I started writing this post. I've been retired longer than I was on active duty. I have a few old photographs, not many at all and that's about it. I was in the Navy from the time I was 18 until I retired at forty. Can't say I have many memories about a great deal of that time. I was just there, doing my job, and living life. I wasn't thinking about Mom, apple pie and America! No, I was thinking about what I was going to do when I got home. If I were to attend some sort of reunion I might remember a few of them and they might remember me. As far as having anything to really talk about, to reminisce about, I can't think of much. Having never been in an actual battle situation, nothing dramatic, it was mostly boredom. No situations to create that " band of brothers " thing you see in the movies.
 Willie, Russel, Dan and Ken: I remember you guys. They are the ones I would like to see again, to know how things worked out for them. The rest are a string of names and places. I literally knew thousands of names over the course of that twenty two years. I can recall a good number of them. It's just that there aren't many I would care to see, hence that short list.To the rest of them all I could say is, it was real! Shipmates? Yes in the strictest sense of the word that's what we were. Friends? Not so much. I do hope everyone has had a good life and wish them continued good health and fortune. Well, except for a few, a few I'd just as soon kick in the face but that's another memory, or at least a dream.  

too late

 The conversation has begun once again, reparations! The last serious discussion of this took place ten years ago. So why do you think it has begun again? Couldn't be because of an upcoming election could it? No, I'm certain that has nothing to do with it. Could it be that a certain political party sees an opportunity to, shall we say, entice a particular demographic to vote a certain way. Could it be that a certain political party only views that group as a demographic, not as real citizens, just voters? That same party is attempting to have undocumented, illegal, aliens vote in our elections! So, for these reasons I question the sincerity of these talks. Seems like political posturing to me.
 The original idea behind reparations was to compensate those who had been enslaved. This of course was after the civil war, immediately after. A group of twelve Black leaders were assembled and asked what it was they wanted. Their response was, land. They wanted land upon which they could live, work, and prosper. They wanted this land separate from the communities of the white man, quite a reasonable request and very understandable. They wished to form their own communities, with their own government representatives, without the interference of the white man. The U.S. Army was to provide them protection until they could protect themselves. This land would come from the plantations they had been forced to work. Had that come to fruition it is hard to imagine what America would be like today. The idea proposed by those black leaders was essentially, equal but separate. Later in history that idea was considered reprehensible. In 1896 the Supreme courts' opinion was that separate but equal was in keeping with the Constitution. That began what is commonly called the Jim Crow era. It wasn't until 1954 that was overturned by the court. So, to sum it up, originally the reparations were to be land ( not more than forty acres is the actual proposal ), this land would be separate from all other lands, and the army would loan the landowners a mule to work the land with. That is what was proposed.
 So, what happened to that? Lincoln was shot and Andrew Johnson becomes president. Johnson is a southern sympathizer and rescinds that order. The land is to be returned to the plantation owners! Johnson is considered the founder of the Democratic party. He is later impeached for violation of the tenure act when he fires Stanton who was Secretary of War. He wasn't convicted however and was not removed from office. Still he holds the distinction of being the first president to face impeachment. But it was Andrew Johnson that withdrew that offer of reparations. From that point forward the black community was treated as second class citizens. Well, until 1954 anyway. 1954 is the beginning of the civil rights era and many programs were instituted to help the black communities achieve success. The barriers are coming down.
 And that is a very brief history of reparations. The conversation has started once again. But what do the black leaders want this time? What is it that they feel will , make it right? Well, there is no clear answer. In monetary terms it has been suggested the Unites States would owe about 97 Trillion dollars to descendants of slaves. How those funds would be distributed isn't mentioned. But what is this conversation really about? Votes is the answer. The Democrats, the very party that created this situation in the first place as the ones saying, yes, yes, you absolutely should get reparations! It's a moral imperative! Of course they have no morals but that is another topic altogether. The objective of the Democratic party has always been the subjugation of the black man! They have been doing that since Andrew Johnson formed the party. The hope here is to " buy " a little more time and votes. That is what this discussion is about. Yes, everyone agrees that slavery was wrong, on every level. Everyone agrees the black man didn't receive a fair deal. Everyone agrees the black man wasn't treated as an equal and suffered for that. There is no discussion about that, everyone agrees. But, what to do. How do we change history? Fact is, you don't. It is far too late to make any meaningful gestures to alter the course of history! You can't change the past you can only work towards a better future.
 How much money does it take to change a persons life? Isn't that the question being asked. Does anyone want forty acres and a mule? In 1865 that was a fortune, a significant compensation. A man could raise his family, make a living through his own labor, and prosper. What are we going to offer today? What would it take? Any large amount of monetary compensation would have to be viewed as winning the lottery! Fact is, 70% of the people that win the lottery go broke. Why? Because they don't know how to handle that much money. It makes no difference about their race. So maybe cash isn't the answer after all. Granted it would be a short term boost in moral no doubt about that but would it have a lasting effect? Doubtful. Some have suggested that black people should all receive free education, free housing, free food, and free medical, all while not being subject to any taxes. Some feel that would be equitable. The only problem being, how to prove who is descended from slaves and who is not? Indeed, if you are of mixed race, ie: not a pure blooded African slave, would that apply to you? Where any mixed race slaves imported to America?
  I don't have any answers. I do feel it is far too late for any meaningful reparations to be made. Anything offered now would just be a token. Anything received would be viewed by many as unfair and cause further divide. Perceptions are very strong motivators. No I just can't see any equitable solution to this issue. But it is my feeling after the elections it will once again be set aside. No matter which party wins, I can't see any meaningful reparations being distributed. 

memories or reminders

 Do you believe in signs? What I mean are signs from the deceased. I often see the one about if a Cardinal is in your yard it is someone you loved. That's the type of signs I mean. Or are those signs just superstition? Could be those signs are a manifestation of your thoughts and desires. Ethereal energy?  I'm on the fence about all of that. It's a possibility but I'm not certain of the likelihood. I just think if it brings you comfort, then that's fine.
 I have had what I call coincidences occur. Sometimes those are hard to explain away. The thing is, what brought that to my attention? That is what can't be explained easily. Seemingly unrelated occurrences combine to bring forth a memory. And I do think that a great number of these signs are just that, memories and reminders. Deja Vu is a bit different as you feel like you have seen that before, literally. Well, that's what Deja Vu means, seen before. Now these signs are something you may not have seen before but have the same effect on you, you are reminded of someone. In some way you could say they are more personal but less familiar. That's a strange paradox now isn't it? Not only that; you may not realize you received a sign until a bit later on, a delayed reaction. Hmm, not until the time is right. If anyone could manipulate time it would be the deceased as time means nothing to them. At least I'm guessing it wouldn't, not when you have eternity to deal with. Talk about making long range plans!
 But what about this idea of communication through signs. Mediums and fortune tellers have always said they could communicate with the other world, in a verbal fashion. They can hear the actual words. Okay, let's say they are special people with a special gift. I'm talking about signs though. It is left to me to interpret those signs, to determine their meaning. Signs only point the way right? Well unless the sign has writing on it, then just read the sign. None of the signs I've received came with that. I've had to assign a meaning to them. Mostly I think they are just letting you know that you are being thought about. I also don't think it is important who is doing the thinking! A memory or a reminder? Those signs could be either. 

act responsibly

 Rewriting the moral handbook. That seems to be the agenda of the 21st century here in America. What were traditionally known to be immoral acts are being justified by legislation. Just pick an issue, any issue and it becomes plain to see. I, we, often focus on the big one at the moment, currently the issue of abortion, but there are many more smaller ones. But first we need to understand just what morals and morality is. Morals are those principles on which your judgement of right and wrong are based. Traditionally in America those morals were derived from the Judaeo-Christian teaching in the Bible. That was the basis for our morality.
 Now ethics are often confused with morals. They are not the same thing. Ethics are principles of right and wrong provided by an outside source. Think of them as laws, subject to change.The founding fathers separated church from state. The thinking there was to treat morals and ethics as separate entities, which rightly, they are. Morals are individual things, ethics apply to the whole. Yes they are easily interchanged, and in some cases correctly so, but for the most part they are separate actions.
 I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a time when the people would use ethics to rewrite morals! To them, and to myself, morals are inflexible things. There is right and wrong. I know I am often challenged on that being told it is too simplistic. I disagree, you can argue, provide excuses, exceptions, and scenarios all day long, but in the end there is right and wrong. For me, morality isn't multiple choice. If something is wrong, it is always wrong. But that seems too constricting to some. We need to change morality to fit the situation. No, that is the function of ethics. The job of legislation is to establish the ethical standard of conduct within a society. In America it was believed that standard would be established by a moral and religious people. And it has been. What concerns me is that the wheels are apparently beginning to fall off that wagon. When legislators and there constituents fully support the killing of babies, in the womb, that isn't the principles of a moral and religious people. I realize Roe V Wade was in 1973, the twentieth century. Of course what the court didn't rule on was when life began, kinda skirting that moral dilemma. If the court had issued an opinion saying life begins at conception, or at six weeks or whatever, they couldn't then, in good conscience, say it was right to kill that baby. The right to life is enshrined in our founding documents! I believe that decision will be reviewed in the near future and the court forced to issue an opinion on just that. Then we will see the moral principle of our nation by the establishment of an ethical standard.
 The thing is the moral handbook is not written through the legislation of man. The moral handbook is an individual thing written in our hearts and minds by tradition. What we learned from our parents and grandparents as moral behavior. Morals are the providence of religious instruction. Morality is in the realm of the spiritual. Ethics are what we are allowed, or not allowed, to do within the society. Ethics are established by man. We don't get to write the moral handbook! Was the Bible written by man? Many say that it was and literally speaking that is correct. God didn't publish the Bible. Did God write it? Where did man get the ability to speak, think, and eventually write those thoughts down? What force in the universe endowed man, and only man, with the ability to write? The ability to pass down information from one generation to the next, to communicate across time is mans' responsibility. Maintaining the moral handbook is a part of that. Act responsibly. 

pandering

 I read a news article yesterday posted on social media. The Mayor of Baltimore, Jack Young, signed legislation for Pride month! They had their annual parade and this legislation was timed to help them celebrate. It was touted as landmark legislation and a shining example of tolerance and inclusiveness. Truly, this will make Baltimore a better place. Never mind that over sixty homicides have occurred already this year, this legislation is important.
 So what was that bit of legislation? Well, single occupancy bathrooms must now be gender neutral! Yes, if a public restroom is to be used by only one person at a time it doesn't matter what gender you are, even if you are transgender! These single occupancy restrooms must be clearly identified as such with the proper signage. It's a win for the LGBTQ community. You can use that bathroom if you are a boy or a girl or anything in between! I read that article and was immediately struck with the absurdity of it all. My immediate comment was, why don't we just put a sign on the door that says bathroom. It's one person at a time so what's the point? Why do we need a sign saying if you don't know what gender you are , you can use this bathroom? I just don't get it. I'm sorry, if you are a guy dressed as a woman isn't your intent to have others think you are a woman? So then why do you want a sign saying, I'm a guy dressed as a woman? Why draw attention to that? I just fail to see any sense in that. Well, in my opinion these gender confused people don't have a lick of sense in the first place but that's another topic.
 But, having posted a comment I did receive some rebuttal from folks. That certainly was no surprise. The one that amused me the most was a person explaining to me that it wasn't a bathroom. Nobody uses that term anymore. It was obvious that I am an American because only Americans call it a bathroom. Why if it was labeled bathroom people might be expected a tub in there. I replied if it is labeled a restroom I might be expecting a lazy-boy or a bed in there. Facilities could be confusing as well. Then I decided we needed to label it a place to perform necessary bodily functions such as the elimination of waste products from our bodies, regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation. And of course we should include pictures for all of that. That legislation I read about requires the gender-neutral signage be posted.
 Look I was just struck by the absurdity of it all. Stick a sign on the door that says bathroom, public restroom, or whatever. People will figure it out. Well there are some that can't figure out what gender they are! They don't know whether to stand up, sit down or what. Urinals must surely be a vexation to them. I really don't care what you do in the bathroom, that's your business. And that is my point. This legislation applies to single occupancy bathrooms! Less than three per cent of the entire population of this country identify themselves as LBGTQ. And now, to satisfy the three per cent we have to post that a non-existent third gender can use the bathroom? What kind of nonsense is that? Pandering to  the community much?    pan·der

Learn to pronounce

verb

gerund or present participle: pandering

1. gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).

   "newspapers are pandering to people's baser instincts"

   synonyms:

   indulge, gratify, satisfy, cater to, give in to, fulfill, yield to, bow to, humor, please, accommodate, comply with, go along with "David was always there to pander to her every whim" I can't see where you would call this bit of legislation anything else. And that's my opinion.

sacrificing ourselves

 The seven social sins. We have all heard or read them. They are often attributed to Gandhi but he was provided that list by a priest named Frederick Donaldson. They have been written about extensively. That is as it should be as they are relevant to us all. If we all avoided those " blunders " as Gandhi called them, the world would indeed be a peaceful place. But that is the ideal and the proverbial light at the end of a tunnel. Still that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for that light. But whatever the case, I saw that list posted once again. Each time I see it I am drawn to one or the other, depending upon my mood and the current social climate. Yesterday it was the one that says, religion without sacrifice. Remember Gandhi calls these things blunders.
 I admit to not being a steady church goer, nor am I an evangelist. Still I have my faith, my belief in a power greater than myself. There has to be a creator. You don't get something from nothing. Yes, it's true, nothing is free in this world and that includes life. There is a price to be paid. It really makes little difference if that price is mandatory or self imposed, the price must be paid. The price is sacrifice. But what is sacrifice? Sacrifice is deferment to a higher power. That is what I think anyway. 
 When you surrender whatever it is you want in deference to a higher power, you are making a sacrifice. If you refuse to do that, you do not truly believe, you do not have faith. Sacrifice comes with an expectation of a return. That is where the rub comes in. Man is an impatient creature. When that promise of return comes after death, that is what really tests our belief. That has always been the challenge. You have to take my word for it! Isn't that what religion is all about? You have to take the word of God for it, whatever it is. Whatever you religious belief promises you in return for obedience to that moral authority, you do have to take their word for it. Believing is the act of compliance, faith is doing it again. The continuance of compliance is a measure of faith.
 A short time ago I wrote a blog called a more permissive faith. I was reminded of that when I read the seven social sins. Religion without sacrifice and mans' struggle to define the requirements for redemption continues. Man seeks redemption because we inherently know we fall short in the sacrifice department. We fear the unknown, that place after death, and attempt to make it comfortable to contemplate. Some choose to ignore the issue altogether, those that claim there is no life after death. For them that is the answer. No promises, no expectations. This is it! I can't help but wonder if that is their last thought before death? The party is over. I would think the sense of sadness would be overwhelming. That is what I think I will feel, sadness. I hope my faith sustains me through that process, ideally it will go untested and I will pass into the next world arriving pleasantly surprised. The big question for me is, will I know?
 Religion without sacrifice. But what if we change that requirement? The real question is, can we change that requirement? That is what I was exploring when I wrote about a more permissive faith. Maybe we don't have to defer to anyone or anything. We can change the rule. In fact we can use those rules to our advantage. We will just say we get to do whatever we want because our God forgives us, no matter what. That's what our God does! That's why he is the best God. We believe in him. Yes we should obey but its' okay if we don't as long as we ask for forgiveness, no sacrifice required. No need to maintain discipline. We'll change the rules. Our God is a loving God and therefore there is no punishment. And that is what we really want to eliminate, consequences. Sacrifice is believed to negate consequences of a negative nature. We seldom make sacrifices for good things, only when we mess up or want something for ourselves. Thing is, we should be sacrificing for the benefit of others. Now that's faith. That's a sacrifice.   

common sense

 Listening to the morning news and I hear this: a study has shown that children of parents who drink alcohol are more likely to drink alcohol themselves. What a shocker! The study has shown that parents that were more lenient with their children increased those odds. Well imagine that. I'm certainly going to download that report, very informative.Who would have known?
 I turned to my wife to give her this information in case she wasn't listening; she was. As we chuckled about the absurdity of that study I couldn't help but think, a study in common sense. And that is just what I think many of these so called studies are. We have these educated people toting their degrees around with them, thousands of dollars in depth , trying to figure out a way to use them. Then other educated people in charge of funds decide to give those folks a job, study common sense. They need to pay experts to figure out the obvious! We need a study in common sense.
 Later in the news it was reported that Colorado has profited, by a billion dollars, following the " legalization " of marijuana. That's correct, a billion dollars in taxes collected. Well just goes to show you what causes the general population will support, try raising a billion for ( insert your cause here. ) Also on the plus side it was reported there were fewer arrests! Imagine that if you will, you make it clear that you won't arrest folks for using pot then report the crime rate is down because you legalized pot! Oh, it was hopeful when first proposed, but now it has been proven. Success, a billion dollars in profit and fewer arrests. Well if that ain't a win/win I don't know what is.
 Maybe it's just me but I see these sort of reports all the time. Common sense answers being studied! I think it is because common sense has become somewhat uncommon. I'm not surprised by that given what the children today are being taught. You get to choose your gender is one example. Instead of teaching the children that if you are born a boy that's what you are, we are teaching them they can change that. They can choose and be celebrated for their choice! After all we now have parades, indeed entire months, devoted to celebrating a person's sexual preferences. I question, what are we celebrating? Common sense tells me what you do in the privacy of your home ain't my business. I don't need a study to show me that. Common sense also tells me if I display, in public, behaviors that offend the majority I will be met with hostility. Wow, who could have guessed that?
 Common sense is nothing more than seeing things are they are, then taking action based on that reality. Common sense isn't an extreme measure. Take the border wall as an example. We have literally thousands of people just walking across the border unimpeded. Build a wall! It's common sense. If the neighbors keep walking through your yard what would you do? Call the police, report the trespass. But it has been decided that these people have a right to walk through your backyard because they are seeking sanctuary. What do you do? Put up a fence! It's that simple isn't it? Yes, it is. A man shoots someone with a gun. Do you take the gun away or lock up the person? Common sense says lock the man up, the gun won't hurt anyone, it'll just stay wherever you put it until another person picks it up. If you don't want to have a baby, don't get pregnant! That's common sense. You know what isn't? Killing the baby. Yet that's what we are teaching the children today, it's a choice. And then people like myself wonder, what happened to common sense? We legislated that! We'll do a study and figure out what to do. Statistics never lie. The birth rate is the lowest he has been in thirty two years years. Well when you abort 92% of all unwanted babies that's bound to happen, it's common sense really. Killing well over 600,000 babies every year will lower the birth rate. Common sense. But it's legal, it's a choice. But, is it common sense? 

it's a problem

 I didn't really listen closely to this news. There is some kind of workshop or think tank about Facebook and other social media. The headline I did hear was about " monitoring " what was posted. The issue being fake news or altered pictures/videos. The example used was that one of Nancy Pelosi that had be altered slightly to make her appear drunk during a speech. What I heard was advocating for limiting freedom of speech. That is my impression anyway. Whereas I agree with the outrage over this fake news stuff I also believe it has to be tolerated. You can't have a free press or free speech while imposing censorship! I think, just as in buying any product, caveat emptor applies. In short, don't believe everything you hear or read. In the modern world you do have to add see to that equation. Yes videos are compelling things, seeing is believing, but you have to be aware that isn't always so. It does complicate things though I won't deny that.
 I understand the problem. Now just what to do about it I haven't a clue. How do you get people to act in an honest and forthright way? In other words, to exercise moral and ethical behaviors and practices. Sounds like a religion doesn't it? So that being established, our government guaranteed there would be no establishment of religion in our legislation, what do we do? Ah, a bit of a sticky wicker wouldn't you say? The first amendment established the right to free speech and specifically says it shall not be abridged! Abridged means, shortened. Therefore what they are saying is I can speak all I want. We have established standards for libel and slander, very strict standards. That's why you seldom hear of anyone winning such a case. You really can't sue someone over their opinion. Injury must be proven, not hurt feelings. The business of Government is not conducted on emotion, but on law. We the people, and by extension our legislators, create law based on emotion at times. But what you have to understand is the government has no emotion, only law. Government should be like a stern parent, concerned for the welfare of its' children but not permissive of bad behaviors either. Our government has no authority to tell you to shut up! We do get to talk back.
 The fact is " news " has always been subjective. It really depends upon who is doing the reporting. In years past it was Newspapers that were the primary spreader of the news. There were, and still are, newspapers that are biased. Years back some papers were very open about that including the word Republican or Democrat in their name! And that is the way that paper leaned and everyone was aware of that. A great deal of that depended upon the financing of that enterprise. Just follow the money has always been applicable. With television news it became a battle of ratings, ie: revenue. I don't think that is the case with social media however. I think it is becoming a battle of control. Getting the ear of the general public is of paramount importance. That's what campaigns are all about! And as we draw closer to the next general election many are getting nervous. We need to control what is being said! So in today's world that means social media outlets. We need to figure out a method to curb all this free speech!
 I liken it to this trend to just rename things. Take this term, hate speech. Just what does that mean? It is nothing more than someone saying they don't like something. Hate is far more forceful, more sinister. That's what we will call any disent from now on, hate! The same applies to terminating a pregnancy. We'll call reproductive health care. That's sounds benevolent, indeed compassionate, a right! What it really does is kill a baby. Oh you will hear it isn't a baby! Well if it isn't why would you have a baby if you didn't terminate it? A paradox? Not to me it isn't. It's crystal clear. What are we going to call it? That's what the conference is all about. How to spin this one. We now have assault rifles. The fault lies with the rifle not the person using it. The rifles are assaulting people! We can ban those, we'll get around to pistols later on. But this negative press, what are we gonna do about it? We can't have people just posting whatever they like. It's a problem.
 As I said I don't have any answers for that problem. People distort the truth, lie, attempt to deceive and misdirect each other all the time. They always have and always will. As far as social media goes to me it is just a platform to express my opinions, post my pictures and videos for my own amusement. Hopefully others find it entertaining. It is sorta like having a million pen pals that you can communicate with instantly. I don't view Facebook or any social media platform as an authority! For that reason I don't believe everything that is posted, whether written, pictures or videos. If anything Facebook has increased my skepticism on most things of a political nature. I am concerned when they start convening conferences to curb freedom of speech. The only censorship I agree with is self imposed. I am thankful for that option on Facebook. If I start seeing things I don't like or agree with, I just block it! That's my choice. Can we reasonably expect everyone to censor themselves? Well, like I said, that's a product of religious belief. It isn't and shouldn't be a function of government. Perhaps if we regained our moral compass these issues wouldn't exist at all. Isn't that a wonderful dream, the American dream. 

gossip or history?

 I had packed away my old photographs and mementos in the attic. But I was asked to provide a copy of a particular one for a friend. I am always happy to do that and a bit flattered as well. To have others show interest in your memories is a compliment. So, I went to the attic and brought down the box. I call that collection the archives. I began searching for that picture and of course got distracted a bit. Pictures have a way of doing that, sending you down different roads.I did find that picture however, along with a few others that I set aside for future use. As I packed the archives up once again I thought about what will happen to them in the future. What happens when I am gone? Not that I plan on going anywhere anytime soon but my memory may have other plans that I don't know about! But whatever the case turns out to be, I want those items saved and talked about. You see the pictures from my childhood, and before, are mostly mysterious things to my wife and children. My wife didn't grow up in my hometown, in fact she has never been there, and so only knows what I tell her. Not that I don't talk,talk,talk, about all of that but I don't expect her to remember much .
 This isn't the first time I have considered all of this. It happens every time I drag out that box. I have considered putting all those photos in an album but have rejected that idea. It certainly saves the pictures but there is little room for explanations. They say a picture is worth a thousand words but unless you write something, they are silent. Then there is the problem of those little momentos. You know the type of thing I mean? Little items saved over time that mean little without explanation. Handmade items, items you treasured. All relics from the past. So, I thinking maybe I should try something different. I'm thinking I need to make a catalogue. If I were to number each item I could then provide a description/explanation for those items. Now I realize that not all items, especially pictures, would have a description of much length but a description nonetheless. It's my feeling they are far less likely to be discarded if you can identify them. Surely you couldn't throw out great, great, great grandfather!
 Several years ago I was given a book. It is a rather large volume and contains blank pages. That's it, all the pages are blank. I have considered what to do with it and now may have found a use for it. Perhaps I'll use it for recording those items. If stored with the box it could act as a sort of catalog. A catalog of memories! My memories. It's an interesting idea and one that would take some time to complete. That has always been the issue, the time it takes and maintaining that interest. It is a boring task no doubt about that. The thing is I don't want to leave any secrets. There were and still are secrets in my past that I seek the answers too. I realize that for some the answer will never be known. You can't know what the mind of a person was unless they tell you. When that person has been deceased for one hundred and fifty years that's difficult. Still I wish I had an answer. I want to know the why of the past not just the what. It's the why that fascinates us. Call it historical gossip if you like. I think a great deal of the " why " of history is just that, gossip. History is told by the victor is an old adage and holds much truth. My history would be no different. I did say I didn't want to leave any secrets but that isn't exactly true. There are things best left to history, things just between you and your God.
 The funny thing about history is that it can offend today. Never in history has that been more evident. Just look at the removal of statues as an example. Those statues are offensive. We are now talking about reparations for the past. These reparations are to be paid to people that weren't even alive at the time of the offense. Their parents weren't alive either! Some are offended by the truth. There are moments in history to be celebrated, and moments in history to be mourned, but all history should be remembered. For that reason I hesitate. I wouldn't want to offend anyone. I am torn between telling the whole story and just glossing over some areas. Do I have the right to tell others secrets? Isn't that what gossiping is all about? Nobody likes a gossip, but everyone is fascinated with gossip, there is a whole industry based on that premise. We reprimand the one telling, while listening intently to the story. But is it gossip if you are telling the truth? That's the justification we like to use, just stating the facts. I'm not certain that justification is enough. Is it alright to upset others when you are assured it will not affect you? I mean, after your passing is it acceptable to expose those secrets?
 You could say each generation will be the last to tell the story. I feel that way at times. It's true that given that box few would know much about it. Oh many things could be surmised, conclusion drawn but details would be missing. And for me, it's all in the details, that is what makes those things important. I talk often of writing a book and have begun the process. I admit it is slow going and difficult to stay focused upon. I keep changing my mind on content. Maybe the book I should be writing is solely about the past, my past. The audience for that book would surely be a narrow one. Not much of interest to someone not a member of the family. In short, there is nothing sensational for me to tell. The only way that book would work is by a total baring of the soul. I'm not certain I can do that. I'd like to say it is because I'm afraid of offending someone, and that is a part of it, but it's not the thing that constrains me the most. I'm more concerned with what damage may be done to myself! It's a very difficult thing to be exposed and vulnerable. It's just not in my nature. Probably the reason I don't consider myself a victim, a popular thing to be these days, but that's another topic. Nor am I a survivor, I'm a conqueror! That's right, I didn't merely survive, I defeated whatever it was I was challenged with. And history is written by the victor! Maybe I will write that book after all. I'll give it some more thought.     

just who

 I didn't write or post a blog yesterday. This morning a good friend asked me where it was. What a kind gesture on her part, thank you Marilyn. It is nice to know that you are missed. I think that is a universal emotion, a need most of us have. It's a reassurance. I responded to her with this quip, I'm just catching my breath. It is a thought, an explanation I hadn't considered until I was asked. So I have to thank Marilyn once again for the inspiration to compose this post. Prior to that I hadn't planned on posting anything today either.
 Perhaps it is time I caught my breath. I have been writing, posting, commenting and sometimes ranting about everything and anything. It could just very well be that I've been so busy talking, I haven't listened. The listening is not to others, but to myself. Have I heard what I've been saying? I do review my posts every now and again. I have found that they are consistent. I haven't had any major revelations in the last several years. That is to say, I feel just the same about just about everything. Some would call that stubborn or short sighted, I call it confident in my answers. The thing is, who is grading the test?
 Is life a test? If it is, what is the reward for passing? What is the punishment for failure? Life and death are the short answers. Do we only get one shot at it? One and done? I believe most of us find that a troubling scenario. We do want something more, something past this mortal plane. For that reason we do feel we need to make payment of some kind. If you want something you have to work for it. That is what has traditionally been taught. In more recent years I believe that is changing just a bit. You have a right to more! The requirement to earn that is being replaced by entitlement. The cost is to be borne by everyone, not the individual. The issue then becomes the defining of the standard answers. The answers then must be, it depends. That's because it does depend , it depends upon whom you are satisfying at the moment.
 What of failure. What is the cost of failure? If you fail to satisfy others you are left alone. We may be persecuted and ostracized from society. You are left to fend for yourself. The road can be a lonely one. Then all you can do is attempt to satisfy yourself. But living within yourself is not a very pleasant experience. We have all been there at times. Remember when you weren't invited to the party? Or remember when you didn't get that promotion. Criticism can send us in the corner. Indeed loneliness, the feeling of being alone, can lead us into some very dark places. And failure lives in darkness.
 But what has all of this to do with me catching my breath? It is all about providing the answers. That is something that seems to be a theme in a great number of my postings. I am offering answers to questions that I think everyone asks themselves at one time or another. What are the answers? That is left to the reader to judge as there are no standard answers to those type of things. I find myself defending my answers, sometimes vehemently, and at others I don't respond at all. And so I'm taking a deep breath and considering the answer. Just who is grading the test?   

constrained

 Within the constraints of society. That is how we are expected to live our lives. But what if those constraints were lifted? What if society makes no demands upon the individual? What are we then left with? Disorder, confusion and disappointment. And that is exactly what we are experiencing today. Our society is undergoing major change and it is very uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable for those attempting to implement the changes, and uncomfortable for those resisting those changes. Society is not well defined, expectations vary.
 What defines the constraints of a society? I would say religious belief is the major contributor. We are told to not discuss politics and religion for very good reasons. If you wish to raise the passions of someone ask them about those subjects. It is from our religious belief that we establish our personal constraints regarding moral and ethical behaviors. That is also the reason there are so many " variations " in the practice of faith. Man does have a way of fashioning faith to fit his wants. The total abandonment of belief in a higher power is the most expedient method and slowly gaining favor in our society today. Well that combined with the introduction of an ideology disguised as a religion. The purpose of each is to remove restraints.
 The premise behind the establishment of the United States of America is a nation of laws. We seperated law from God. That was the idea, the concept behind the whole thing. Our laws would apply equally to all people, regardless of creed. Still John Adams pointed out our constitution was made only for a religious and moral people, inadequate to the governance of any other. He was talking about self restraint, seeing the danger inherent in a system based solely on the law of man. Why? Men make laws advantageous to men! And who is making the law in this land? The rich and powerful for the most part. Yes,yes, we all get to vote on legislation don't we? How many laws have you voted on? Chances are, not many at all, unless you are a politician. And even then politicians tend to vote in their best interest, not yours. The best you can hope for is that they will vote based on the wishes of the majority of their constituents. That doesn't always happen. It really depends upon what is politically expedient for them at the time. That's why we see so much flip-flopping on issues.
 John Adams and others were well aware of the danger. If you allow man to impose his own constraints eventually there won't be any. Man will find ways to justify every immoral act or deed you can imagine. It's true, man has used religion to do that very thing! That's because religion and religious belief are extremely powerful motivators. For that reason it was decided our nation would not establish a religion. We would rely upon man, moral and ethical man. Now there is a dream. A moral and ethical politician. A rare bird indeed, in my humble opinion. Adams also said, "because power corrupts, society's demand for moral authority and character increases as the importance of the post increases" It is important to note he said society's demand. And just what is the character of our society today? It certainly isn't the same as it was in John Adams day. Or is it? Has the nature of man changed? No, I don't believe it has. What has changed? The constraints of society is the answer. You know, constraint is a good thing, all things in moderation. God gave man ten laws. If we all followed those laws there wouldn't be any issues. But man decided to make his own laws as a way to circumvent those ten pesky commandments. Why? Because we want it now! Whatever it is. We want it right now. A promise isn't enough. " Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self control and therefore religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge and well being. " ( John Acton )
 Control may be obtained many ways. One method is through charity. The acceptance of charity is an acquiescence of liberty. You are left in debt. When that charity is your government you are then indebted to that government and its laws. Those laws may or may not reflect your beliefs. A constraint is placed upon you. Man's law begins to define the society. A society concerned only with immediate needs and power. Morality and ethics are secondary. The primary concern is the law! The law of man. Think about that.   

it begins with belief

 " A man must know his destiny... if he does not recognize it, then he is lost. By this I mean, once, twice, or at the very most, three times, fate will reach out and tap a man on the shoulder, if he has the imagination, he will turn around and fate will point out to him what fork in the road he should take, if he has the guts, he will take it. " ( George S Patton )
 One of my favorite quotes from the general and one I have considered many times. At times, when I feel a bit lost, I wonder if I lack the imagination. I can't honestly say I have ever felt fate tap me on the shoulder. I'm thinking perhaps that is an  experience the general felt and it is his experience that he was sharing. That George S Patton was a student of history and indeed, felt he had lived other lives, was well documented. He felt it was his destiny to be a warrior. Did his belief fulfill his destiny or did destiny fulfill fate?
 I have written before of this idea that fate fulfills destiny. That was back in September of 2017. And now I find myself revisiting that thought. I still think that our destiny is predetermined. The one who created us knows how we will end. We are given free will to act, but that will not change our destiny. In the end, his will is done. That of course comes with many questions, many arguments. The least of these would be, why bother to follow the word of God at all? I mean, if the destination is the same, and you will reach that destination regardless, what's the point? In order for that to work you would also have to believe that God punishes the disobedient. But what if your destiny was to be disobedient? A balance is required in all things. But I am thinking about what Patton said, if a man does not recognize it, he is lost. I have no idea what my destiny is to be. I only have thoughts of what I would like it to be.
 Has fate tapped me on the shoulder and I failed to turn around? No, I don't believe that it has. I have never been one to just rush forward. I have explored other avenues. But maybe that is what Patton was trying to say in the first place. He was aware of his destiny from an early age. By choosing a career as a soldier and pursuing that wholeheartedly, he sealed his fate. He believed in that destiny as wholeheartedly as a pious man believes in heaven. The guts he spoke of is the willingness to pursue that destiny, at all costs. We have all heard that opportunity knocks and we should answer. Perhaps opportunity and destiny are intertwined. But perhaps they aren't. Who can know? As men how can we be certain of anything at all? I'm thinking that we can't! All we can do is believe. Is it belief that seals fate? Is it belief that determines our destiny? If you believe in your God, truly believe, will that seal your destiny, your immortality? Isn't that what we are all striving for, immortality? Not in the physical sense though, immortal in our deeds. Patton achieved that to a degree. Others have done the same, Alexander the great, Charlemagne, Napoleon and others, names in history remembered, immortal across the ages.
 We hear it all the time, believe in yourself. It is sound advice, no doubt about that. It is also, perhaps, the most difficult of things to do. Self doubt creeps in all the time. Outside forces seem to work against us at every turn. How can what we believe be reality, when reality demonstrates otherwise? Perhaps, just perhaps, that is what Patton was talking about when he said, " if he has the guts, he will take it. " Was he saying you continue to believe in yourself? Is that the guts he is speaking of? When everything seems stacked against you, not to give up. You have to believe. Can you create your own destiny, by belief? Not if it is predetermined you can't. And so, I'm back where I began. I'm thinking it all begins with belief. 

ID

 Voter ID, what an idea. I can't understand why anyone would object to that. Given the number of various permits, licenses, and other forms of identification already required why object to one more? You could get it at the DMV along with your driver's license. The documents you have to produce to satisfy them are more than sufficient proof that you are eligible to vote in the United States. Well, notwithstanding the current trend to issue a license to undocumented illegal aliens! Or you could get one at the post office, along with your passport photo. What of the cost? Well, it's tax deductible. Or if you show proof of eligibility, it would be free, you know like school breakfasts and lunches. I'm certain it could be figured out. I can't see any reasonable objection to having a voter ID card. I remember when I didn't need ID to get into the school. Those days are long gone.
 Everyone knows that a certain percentage of votes cast each election are fraudulent. It isn't a question of if, it's a question of how many. The deceased have been known to cast their ballots. Others have been known to have voted at several polling places, almost at the same time. It's a fact, voter fraud happens each election cycle. If an ID would eliminate even a small portion of that it is well worth it. And now there are those that would eliminate the electoral college, relying solely on the popular vote! Given the amount of fraud going on that would only exacerbate the situation. The electoral college was created to establish a balance between rural and urban areas. Eliminate that and the large urban areas win the election every time, the heartland of America has no say by virtue of sheer numbers. Remember we have a Republic for a reason. A Republic, a government of the people, by the people, for the people! All the people, not just those living in the cities! But that is a whole discussion in itself.
 I think the time is well past due. We should all be required to have a voter ID. If you wish to vote, get that ID. I laugh at those that complain. It's my right! Yes, it's a right guaranteed by the constitution. If you truly value that right you should want to protect it. A part of that would be getting that ID. It isn't an inconvenience! You know what is? All those men and women that have fought and died defending that constitution, that right. All those men and women that have served this nation in the armed forces preserving that freedom. Now that is inconvenient! I think you can find the time between election cycles to obtain that ID.