now you know

 Today I get to spend my savings. Yup, got an extra day. At my age I am grateful for anything extra, especially time. So today I feel a responsibility to use it wisely. I did purchase some paint and plan on painting the living room but do I want to use that extra day for that? I don't know seems like a bit of a waste. I mean I can paint any day now that I'm retired. The weather isn't good for any outdoor activities. It's too cold and windy today. Tomorrow is supposed to be a wonderful day. So what to do with this extra time?
 This is my seventeenth leap year. I could just go with that and say I'm 17 but I don't want to be seventeen again. That was an in-between year. I already had a drivers license but not old enough to buy a beer. I was enlisted in the Navy, delayed entry program, but didn't go to boot camp until I was 18. I was 17 when I graduated from high school so that was a good thing. Still, taken in its' entirety 17 wasn't that great an age to be. Old enough to know better but still too young for some things! You know what I mean? Besides that, 1970 wasn't all that terrific a time. Over one hundred thousand people are protesting the Vietnam war in Washington DC. That was the scene in Forest Gump and I didn't agree with those protests. The Concorde made its' first flight that year and was going to revolutionize travel to Europe. It made its' last flight in 2003. The revolution is over. And the voting age was lowered to 18. In addition to those things Disco music started to be a thing and Disco stinks! Sorry to all of you that enjoy that Genre but I don't like it. Fact is we haven't had much good music since in my opinion. In 1971 the Day the Music died was released and I have to say I agree with Don Mclean, it did.
 I expect not many people write personal checks anymore. I know I write very few. Mostly I look at my checkbook when I need to know my routing and account number, But if we did most of us would write the wrong date on this day. The next time we write this date we will have a new President. Only then will the politics ease up a bit. That's going to be the case no matter which party wins or loses in this election cycle. Yeah I'm thinking it will a long four years until the next leap year! I'll be 21 in leap years then and 21 is a pretty good age to be. Old enough but young enough. I'll have a " real " ID by then. Strange how they call a drivers license a real ID. You would have thought the government would have come up with some ID that they issued. Not everyone has a drivers license. Now you can get a state ID and I'm guessing that is what you get if you don't have a license in place of that as far as a real ID goes. Why don't we just have a federal ID? Doesn't have anything to do with a drivers license at all? What happens if you get your license suspended or revoked? Is your real ID suspended and revoked? Hmm, I don't know.
 But I've got this extra day to do whatever I want with. Feels like I should treat myself to something special. I did save up for this after all. It's not daylight savings time which I spend every spring, jumping that clock ahead. No this takes four years of saving, or is it ignoring? I mean the earth is still revolving the time passing by and we ignore that until it adds up to a whole day. But for the sake of convenience we just decided 24 hours to a day and sixty minutes to an hour. Every four years we make a correction just to keep the calendar straight. As a result we have this extra day. What to do with it. I don't know, it's stressing me out. Maybe I should just go back to bed.
 Why do we call it leap year? The actual term for adding time to the calendar is intercalation. We use leap year because each date on the calendar " leaps " a day.  Christmas in 2014 was on a Thursday, 2015 fell on a Friday but in 2016 Christmas leaped over Saturday and occurred on a Sunday. It's a bit confusing when you look at like that but it's the only way we can keep Christmas from eventually winding up in July. And my birthday is in July and nothing is going to upstage that! But remember we don't add a leap day in years divisible by 100 but not by 400. 2000 was a leap year, 1700, 1800, 1900 were not. For future reference 2100 won't be either. So there, now you know.

petty

 Yesterday I was a bit taken aback. Now I'm fully aware of how divided the country is concerning the current president. The hate is palatable. There is no room for discussion, it is just a straight out assault. But I saw this posting of Mike Pence. It was a picture of him touching some object. Now there was a sign clearly posted on it saying, Do not touch. There was a group of people with him. There was no explanation with this photo. I can only assume he was being given a tour of some facility where this object was either made or on display for some reason. I was taken aback by the comments under that picture. People were calling him names and deriding him for " touching." I added my comment saying, like you have never touched paint with a wet paint sign posted. I was immediately attacked as a Trump supporter. Why was that? It was because Mike Pence is the vice-president and anyone that supports Trump is surely a bad person! And I must be a Trump supporter because I said something in defense of Mike Pence. Therefore I'm a bad person too.
 It turned into a bit of a discussion with at least one individual. I was asked , why did he touch it? I don't know the answer to that question. I offered an hypothesis though. It looked like we was being given a tour and perhaps he was encouraged to touch that object. I know that happens all the time with celebrities' and other notables. It's a sort of perk, wouldn't you agree? Whatever the case I was immediately accused of making excuses for him. It was suggested that I also make excuses for Trumps' behaviors. Of course I hadn't mentioned Trump at all but that didn't matter at all. The haters are mind readers as well. I tried to defuse this conversation a bit but there was going to be no reconciliation. Mike Pence is a terrible person that doesn't read signs! It was even pointed out that reading is fundamental! The implication was clear enough, just hate!
 I went on to suggest that we just stop with this juvenile stuff. That wasn't met with anything but derision. And therein lies the root of the matter. There are those that are so anxious to find fault with others that they can't even resist the smallest of opportunities. He didn't read the sign and touched something! OMG, he should be removed from office because, as one person informed me, she had been taught to follow the rules. That same person assured me she had never touched wet paint! I could only assume she never got in the ten items only express lane with eleven items or used the exit door at Walmart to enter the store! I'm betting the tags are still on her pillows and mattress.
 Well whatever the case may be I was a bit disappointed yesterday. I know how a great number of people are just holed up in their little forts and defending their position like the Alamo. I was disappointed however to discover how many were willing to do that over a picture. There were those that seemed to think his touching that object, whatever it was, was a grave offense. If anyone of less notoriety had done that would we have even heard about it? I highly doubt that. What we had was Mike Pence being given a tour, accompanied by a photographer, that snapped this shot. There was no accompanying text. Had he been told to touch it? Did he just decide to touch it? What was the object? Would touching this object cause damage to it? Would this object cause damage to the one touching it? We don't know any of that. Not one single thing. Next thing you know Mike Pence will cross the street against the light! Amazing how petty some have become. 

Governance

 Thomas Jefferson said: " It is error alone that needs the support of Government, Truth can stand by itself. " What do you think he meant by that? I'm thinking he was talking about imposing our will on the general public. The purpose of Government is to govern after all. To govern means to throttle back, control, to keep from running away. When people start doing what is wrong, government needs to step in. The irony is government, law, often supports that which is in error. It does so by a majority vote of the people, at least in America that is the way it is supposed to work. Law and moral judgement, different entities.
 Another irony is that law delineates the moral fabric of society. Yes, laws say what is allowed and what is not. It could be argued that in America the first laws where the Bill of Rights. Those ten items were guarantees to the people, rights that couldn't be infringed upon.
 The Declaration of Independence was an explanation to the King. We credit Jefferson with the authorship of that document but in reality it was drafted by a committee including four other men. For that reason I think we can call it a consensus of ideas. It includes this passage " and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they declare the causes which impel them to separation " Noteworthy to me is the explanation of the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them. I believe Jefferson is saying that God empowers the people to right and moral action. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind implies that we should listen to others, their wants and needs. The Declaration went on to say we weren't getting that and so we feel compelled to separate ourselves. That the founding fathers, the authors of those documents felt justified, by Nature's God, to act in the manner they did goes without question. Note they say, Nature's God purposely, not defining what God that may be. They believed that men would act according to the laws of nature.
 The reality is that man all too often acts contrary to nature. As a result Government is required to support those actions. The problem, simply put, is to get mankind to act in accordance with nature, with what we all know to be inherently correct behaviors. Think the golden rule. If all mankind followed that natural law government would not be necessary. But that isn't going to happen. I know it, you know it and Jefferson knew it as well.
 What do we want from Government? Is it life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? No, we just want government to prevent others from interfering with our concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You could say, enforce our morality.  For do we not all act in accordance with our individual moral code? We do, as we search for justification to deviate from the laws of nature. It goes easier the more we deny nature's laws exist in the first place. That is the reason for so many different religions and religious practices throughout the history of mankind. It has always been man's desire to please whatever god or gods he adopts in the hope of reward. Whether it was just to get rain, food, or recover from an illness, our God has control over that Nature's God. The supreme being. Then man began writing down the rules that governed nature's God. It's undeniable that many bad things have happened over the centuries as a direct result of those " rules. " Indeed they were labeled Commandments! We tend to think of only ten but scholars tell us that the Torah contains over six hundred commandments. My point is simply the use of the word commandments, you could substitute that word for laws. The Bible is not the only religious text in the world. I did a Google search and found a listing of the top ten! Not having read any of those I can still assume they are instructions. Isn't that what religious texts do?
 In the concluding portion of the Declaration Jefferson wrote: " appealing to the Supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions. " So who is the Supreme judge of the world? Well depends upon who you ask. But I think a fair question would be, what is the supreme judge of the world, not who. I say that because each of us has to define that supreme judge for ourselves. As for the rectitude of our intentions what does that mean? Rectitude is morally correct behavior or thinking. In other words doing what we feel is right, justified, and pleasing to our God. In the end we do not appeal to government, we appeal to the supreme judge of the world. Error requires the support of government, rectitude does not.  

in spite of

 I saw on the news the passing of Katherine Johnson. She was an mathematician for NASA for 35 years. Her accomplishments are nothing short of extraordinary. She certainly lived a long life at 101. I of course had never heard of this lady before, I doubt many outside of NASA had. She is just one of hundreds, if not thousands of anonymous people doing extraordinary things in their jobs. Many go unrecognized. But as I listened to all of the well deserved accolades it didn't escape my notice. It was repeated several times that she was both a woman and African-American. Those two facts were empathized. I got the impression they were being used almost as a justification for the praise she was getting. I couldn't help but ask myself, are accomplishments made greater because of race or gender?  As I said, and I can't stress this enough, Katherine Johnson deserves every bit of praise and recognition. I won't go on to say it should have been sooner and patronize her memory. A woman of her obvious skill and intelligence doesn't require that. She did her job, exceptionally well, and did so without fanfare. Now I already said I hadn't known anything about her before her passing and that's the truth. For that reason anything I say regarding her personality is just speculation on my part. It was reported that she was among the first African-American women to be employed by NASA. Her mathematical prowess must have impressed somebody! By all accounts it was at genius level and her calculations enabled our trip to the moon.
 Still I can't help but ask that question, are accomplishments made greater due to race or gender? It certainly appears that way on occasion. Now I get it, I'm a white male living in America with every privilege  and opportunity. I understand that I shouldn't be saying a thing about any of that. It won't stop me though. It just brought to mind an adage I had written some time back. Everyone wants equality until they are treated equally. Now I'm not saying that applies to Mrs. Johnson I don't think she ever sought anything more than anyone else. What I am implying by that adage is simply this: many accomplishments by those other than white male Americans are often prefaced with " in spite of. " You know because they are not equal despite having equal opportunity. When they succeed is the accomplishment made greater? That's what I'm talking about. As long as we continue to " recognize " race and gender as " handicaps " will equality ever really be achieved? I don't see how.
 I'm quite certain that there any number of well deserving individuals of every race and gender that are as deserving as Mrs. Johnson. Will we hear of these individuals? We will if they are members of certain demographic groups, at least the odds are far greater we will. Think Tuskegee airman, Navajo code talkers, Harriett Tubman and others. The argument could be made their recognition is long overdue and I can't dispute that. My only point of contention is, are their accomplishments any more worthy of that recognition due to race or gender? The answer has to be no.
 I'm not questioning the recognition these people receive. It's just that listening to the news reports on her, and the emphasis on her race and gender, made me think. I am thinking about equality. How can we achieve that? Perhaps more disturbingly to me is the thought that we will never achieve that. I'm thinking it is not in human nature to do so. There will always be " exceptions " and  " excuses " for everything. Whether we use them to our benefit or determent, they will always exist. True equality? Not as long as we say, in spite of.    

Shrove?

 Today is shrove Tuesday. It's also Fat Tuesday and Mardi Gras. Today in America more people know about it for eating pancakes than anything else. Well at least in my small sampling they do. Several popular restaurants offer specials today. Now I know it is, or was, a religious thing and so many may not be aware of that. A couple of younger people I spoke with at the Walmart store gave me a blank stare when I mentioned that today was Shrove Tuesday, you know that brief awkward silence that follows, until I mentioned pancakes. Then the light came on, it's pancake day with no understanding of what that means. Of course Wednesday is Ash Wednesday and I wonder how many know about that. It's just a perception of mine but it seems like fewer and fewer Catholics get those ashes on their forehead. Maybe there just aren't as many Catholics in this area as in the areas I lived in the past.
 For me it is a sure sign that spring is getting close. When I was young we always talked about giving something up for lent. I don't believe I ever did. My grandson did one year that I know of. He gave up eating Kit-Kats. He did it! I remember because I was amazed. I wasn't raised Catholic but we knew about some of those traditions. The word shrove, as I remember it being explained to me, meant being forgiven. During Lent you were supposed to be asking for forgiveness and it was a solemn time. Lent prepares you for Easter day. You are supposed to take stock of your life, make amends for wrongs, and generally get your pious on! On Easter we celebrate the resurrection. It's a rebirth.
 It's true that when I was younger attending church every Sunday I was aware of the Christian calendar. Advent, Epiphany, Lent and Pentecost are what I recall. It would be listed on the top of the board that displayed what hymns were to be sung that day. The Reverend wore a different color stole for each season, I think. Not certain about that. Each season was explained as it arrived. I don't recall pancakes ever being mentioned as a part of that. I expect they were though, its' been a thing for a long time. In New Orleans for Mardi Gras they'll be having King cake. Hope you don't get the Baby. Yeah, that's a thing down there. Yes it's Carnival!
 Well I've been trying to write this small thing about Shrove Tuesday but my cat is driving me crazy. So this is it for today. Morris is super hyper for some reason, maybe it is the change in his food. I've learned to not have any of those solar powered things in the windows. They are like a roadside attraction to him, irresistible. Anyway I've lost my train of thought altogether, derailed. Have a good day, eat some pancakes and let the repenting begin.   

incidents and memories

 Memories from almost a half a century ago. That is what I find myself thinking about. The fact that they are fifty years old is what I was thinking about! Where did that fifty years go? It's a question we all find ourselves asking at times, well those of us that have been fortunate enough to have been around that long anyway, and lucky enough that we can remember. The truth is there has been a lot of changes since then, even my memories have changed, But I still enjoy those old memories, those snippets in time that for one reason or another stayed with me. The highs and lows of childhood are what I'm talking about right now. That was fifty years ago for me. Fifty years ago for my Mother would make her forty years old. She would be remembering me graduating high school, all her other children married, and the introduction of the microwave oven for home use. But fifty years ago for me places me in East Hampton High, a senior in fact. I would be in the very first graduating class from the new school. I hear that school is outdated now and needs replacing. Well it is fifty years old!
 Yes fifty years has passed. To be completely accurate it won't be fifty years until July the twentieth for me. I do remember moments from that time. It's a strange thing though, when I think of my childhood, I remember it in whole. Does that make any sense to you? What I mean is I remember that time as one big picture but only recall certain scenes. I remember teachers, their names, and whether I liked them or not. I remember incidents! Incidents are those things that happened that weren't necessarily good things. I guess that's why we have incident reports. I also remember triumphs, when I got an A+ or a Gold star. I remember when I made a particularity difficult catch or caught that fish. The good things are the memories, the bad things incidents. We are all quick to share memories but reluctant to share incidents. It's human nature I suppose, even after fifty years.
 Often when I sit down to write these memories of mine I search through that file. I have shared a few incidents over the years. Still memories is in the title, and it is memories I like to share the most. I'm running low on those from that time period. I can't explain it but what happened twenty five or thirty years ago doesn't seem like memories to me, too close to today. Maybe it's because there are too many around that might contradict those memories. Too many that can dispute the facts.
 It would be far more entertaining to others if I were to write an incident report. People love to hear about the less than stellar moments others have experienced. It makes us feel better about ourselves. It is a comfort to know others screwed up just as bad as you did, or even worse. Oh I've had my share of incidents. Still nothing " outstanding " just the normal kid stuff. It is also far easier to forget an incident than it is a memory. I think that is because they are made of different materials. Memories are made of everything good, or at least the things that are pleasing to us. Incidents are the refuse. I do have a good number of memories from fifty years ago, memories I've carried with me over the years. The incidents however I carry as baggage. They are the things that keep my feet on the ground. They provide a balance. I'm tempted to set that baggage down on occasion, to just let it go. I've even been told that you should do so. I don't believe that though. I believe they are necessary things. The past provides us with context. We can't change the past that much is certain. The truth is we can't the future either, it hasn't happened yet! So the best we can do is remember. Remember the good and carry the bad with us. I'm thinking when we get to our final destination we will unpack those bags. Only then will we know if we prepared properly. Did we remember everything? 

stuff

 I'm stealing this thought from my daughter in law. She was wondering if anyone else had a collection of old power cords, usb cables, printer cords and the like that they just can't part with. She stores hers in a Thirty One tote. I read that posting and immediately responded with I have a good collection of them as well. I did manage to toss a good amount of them in a bit of frustration one day. I miss them. But I still have quite a number of cords around in various locations. I have a special spot where I store all the transformers. You know the ones you get to charge your phone or power various devices. I just can't help but save those, you never know when you'll need a3.5V DC power supply! Yes it is a bit of an addiction.
 We all have a junk drawer. Every home has that one drawer where all the miscellaneous stuff goes. Batteries, new and old ones. Why do we keep those old ones? Just in case is the answer. There are probably various screws, rolls of tape, a few tools, curtain brackets, a flashlight that doesn't work, old keys that we longer remember what they went to, a few instruction sheets, a couple of manufacturers warranties, and of course, a few smaller cords. But the junk drawer isn't big enough for all those cords hence the need for another storage area dedicated to them.
 Now I found that post amusing on a couple levels. First off I believe we all have a habit of saving those cords. That is cords that are not permanently attached to the device that is. I admit I've been known to cut a really " good " cord off an appliance before throwing it out, yes some cords are better than others. Then I was amused because it was my daughter in law who posted it. She included a picture of her tote full of cords. What amuses me about that is she sells Thirty One totes! Thirty One, in case you are not aware, is a company that sells all manner of storage totes, bags, and the like. Customizable with your monogram they are quite popular. I see it as akin to collecting those Longaberger baskets that were so wildly popular. So that's why it strikes me funny, the person that sells totes is complaining about filling up totes with junk. Rather ironic don't you think? Those thirty one totes are designed so you can take more junk with you wherever you go. They do sell ones designed for every occasion. We Americans sure do like taking all our stuff with us, we always have. Our Army soldiers carry more stuff on their back than any other nation in the world and that has been so since the beginning. It doesn't matter if we are going to the beach or going to war, we're taking our stuff with us!
 We do like our stuff. We don't like to part with our stuff even when we don't need it anymore. We might need it sometime in the future. That's especially true with those cords. As my daughter in law pointed out, the new technology might need a cord from the outdated technology! I can see that. Of course I still remember when electrical cords where covered in cloth. You remember, they were black with strands of white running through them. They would become frayed over time and need replacing. They were replaced with the new cord. They were either black or brown, a plastic material that turned hard as rock over the years. Ah but now, now we have a durable rubber compound with the ends molded right on. We plug both ends in and can use it on any number off compatible appliances. A good number of lamps these days come with the plug molded onto the cord. Can it be much longer before lamps have removal cords as well? Then we can have more cords to collect, probably a good thing for the environment when you think about it.
 I'm not even going to start in with crafting supplies. How much of that stuff do you have around the house? How many scraps of paper, felt, yarn, sticks, glues, staples, scissors, yardsticks, glue guns, and other necessities? No, I'm not going to think about that. But maybe I'll think about those cords. I coud get rid of some of them. I better not though, what if I needed a longer usb cable at midnight or a data transfer cable? No, I had best hold onto that stuff. I just thought, what if I needed that stuff on a Sunday? Then I remembered, Walmart never closes, that's not an issue these days. We can buy more stuff every day, all day. And if Walnart doesn't have it, the mall will. 

the real thing

 I was reminded by the news that I have to get a real ID. I've heard about this before but thought I only needed it if I wanted to fly. I figure if I haven't learned to do that at this point, I probably won't! But the story went on to say I will need one to go on a military base and one other scenario that I don't remember. Of course this real ID is nothing more than a star added to your drivers license. I haven't heard what you do if you don't have a drivers license. I'm assuming that it would be a state issued ID. They went on to list the requirements for obtaining this real ID. First on the list was proof of citizenship. An original birth certificate is required. Proof of your Social Security number, two items proving residence in the state, and something else. They reporter explained that this real ID legislation was passed following 9/11. Nineteen years ago and it is becoming a requirement by this October, if the states don't get an extension that most are requesting. The terrorists on 9/11 had real driver licenses issued by various states but they didn't have their real ID on them! Imagine that, terrorists getting a drivers license but not telling the truth about themselves. If only they had to produce documentation. I'm certain that would have foiled their plans, they surely wouldn't have produced fake documents! Of course it isn't lost on me that nineteen years later and those same state are issuing a driver license to illegal aliens! I'm certain they all have the proper documentation though because you wouldn't flee your country, walk across thousands of miles of desert without bringing all the proper documents with you. I'm certain that's all legit. Well it's obvious they can't fly or they wouldn't have walked here. I wonder if they are getting a real ID?
 Well whatever the case is I suppose I have to go get another drivers license. When I got my commercial license I had to provide all kinds of documents, pass a background check and everything. Still, that isn't enough to get a real ID. I need to go back, bring more documents and prove who I am once again. A military ID card proving my retired status isn't enough. My commercial drivers license isn't enough. But if I bring an electric bill or a piece of mail with a Maryland state address and my name on it, that's good! That's proof I live in Maryland, well because I wouldn't fake that stuff if I were a terrorist. I can produce my SS card though. No picture on that, nothing but a name and a number. There was a day it was clearly printed on there, not for identification purposes! They removed that and now demand you produce that document as proof. No one would ever falsify that! Of course if I'm an illegal alien I don't need any of that, I'm here illegally! It's plain to see I'm not flying anywhere. The real ID is only intended to keep me from hijacking an airplane, entering a military installation or other federal facilities. You know like if you are a disabled veteran and need to use a government facility, no card, no service for you! But to be completely clear, you can still get on those facilities with a military ID.
 Okay so if this is going to keep us safe I'm all for it. I just question how effective a deterrent this really is. If you are worried about terrorists do you really believe this would stop them? Here I am , at the airport, bomb strapped to my back, I slip through the security checkpoint and get the door of the airplane, real ID please, oh no I don't  have one of those and I just turn around and leave. Whew that was a close call, saved by real ID.
 I was just remembering the days when all I carried was a little black book. Now I carry my Social Security card, medicare card, drivers license, medical summary, name of my primary care physician, an ATM card, several credit cards, and my military ID showing my retired status. Still I had best get down to the DMV and get a Real ID, all those others are merely supporting documents! I have to get the real thing. It would almost be easier to just seek refugee status in another country. You know, get free medical care, a monthly stipend, food stamps, housing and educational training opportunities. Heck I can get a drivers license without having to prove a thing. 

hedging the bet

So now I'm hearing a millionaire complaining about the billionaire have too much money.  You can't make that stuff up. I confess to not listening to the last Democratic debate. I did see the highlights on the news the next day. Elizabeth Warren on the warpath, Bernie flapping his arms around and Bloomberg looking a bit confused by the whole thing. Amy just stands there grinning most of the time, and Pete, I'm not sure what's up with Pete. But it did strike me funny that Bernie was complaining about Bloomberg's money. Well when you only own three houses and have a net worth of a mere two million or so it is tough. Bloomberg has many cars, a helicopter and I don't know what else. I did hear Bloomberg say he was giving his money away!
 But like I said I didn't listen to the full debate. I'm not voting in the Democratic primaries so I'll wait until they decide who they are going to select. So far the only real platform statement I have heard from them is, we need to beat Trump. I haven't heard much policy debate, I just hear, I can beat Trump. Bernie wants Medicare for all but has no plan to pay for it. When pressed on that topic he usually start talking about Trump. From what I've seen that is the response to any questions about policy, I can beat Trump. Seems to me the Democrat's don't care about who is the best candidate, just who can beat Trump. They have their socialist, a couple of women, a gay guy and a few others mixed in. They even got old Joe in the race. He hasn't gotten an endorsement from the last President, yeah the one that chose him for vice-president, and who have to wonder why that is? I hear more discussion about Obama and Hillary than I hear about any new candidates. And it looks like Obama is laying low.
 We'll see how it all shakes out. Yesterday I posted a hypothetical that garnered a few reactions. I asked what if? Bloomberg could win the nomination from the Democrats. He could buy it, a real concern of Bernie Sanders because Bloomberg has more money than he does, and well, you know that money should be redistributed! Which leaves me scratching my head. If the Democrats want the wealth redistributed, you know, everyone gets the same. why aren't they putting all their campaign money into one pot and then sharing it equally throughout the campaign? Isn't that fair? But if Bloomberg did win and became President he could then change parties. Just like that a Republican. Wouldn't be the first time Bloomberg has switched parties. He could even just declare himself a neutral president. There is no constitutional requirement that the president belong to any one party whatsoever! Now that would be an interesting scenario. Would both parties then have to work together to pass legislation? Remember the Congress can't make laws without the Presidents approval, although they can override his veto, another process. The President however can issue executive orders that aren't technically laws, but carry the same weight as laws unless the Supreme court intervenes. Yes, it could prove to be an interesting scenario indeed.
 The what if in that is simply this. What if Bloomberg and Trump orchestrated this whole thing. What if Trump called upon his old friend Michael. Could it be that Trump is hedging his bet just a bit? And if Michael does win what's that mean to him? Well you wind up being the President of the United States of America. What if he loses? The President can issue executive actions especially those dealing with labor and environmental regulations. Trump could then use those powers to the benefit of Bloomberg. It's all about the Benjamins. And that is the bottom line in all of this. Don't forget that. That's why the millionaire is complaining about the billionaire.
 Machiavelli would be proud.  

what I mean

 America, as we all know, was founded by white Europeans. That is an indisputable fact in history. Yes, Europeans are white people regardless of nationality, just as all Africans are black. Well, that is in a strictly common sense view anyway not necessarily technically correct. But for purposes of discussion I believe it is a fair statement. So, it was white European culture that was the basis for the United States of America, with a few modifications. Those basic modifications were delineated in the Declaration of Independence, really an explanation for behaving in the fashion we choose to behave and later on in the Constitution and subsequent amendments to that constitution.

 A fundamental principle in this was the separation of church and state. It was, in fact, the very first amendment to the constitution. There is a reason for that. Those white Europeans that established the nation had experienced the effects of religious persecution and witnessed the effects on government. No religion was to be established as the official religion of the nation. They went on to say no one could be prohibited from practicing their religion as well. That's the basic premise. It is also indisputable that the majority were Christians and Jews, although there were a few Muslims present at that time in America. The founding fathers and those later legislators composing amendments to the founding documents were also Christians and Jews. I mention that for a very specific reason. The following is an excerpt from a paper written by a Muslim cleric explaining the religion of Islam. Muslims practice that faith. Here is what he says. "  Another unique aspect of Islam which has made it an everlasting religion is the fact that Islam is not only a ‘Friday-go to mosque` religion. Islam is a system of life and as such has ECONOMIC and POLITICAL doctrines. Unlike Christianity, in Islam religion and state are not separated. The prophet of Islam himself established the first Islamic state. He was a prophet and was simultaneously the head of a state. " Note especially that he says, in Islam religion and state are not separated. He continues to explain that Mohamed is the head of state! 

 For me this problematic. The problem is this. Keith Ellison became the very first Muslim congressman. He was sworn in on the Quran by Nancy Pelosi on January the 4th, 2007. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar followed as the first women Muslims in government positions. Legislative positions! That's what troubles me. Yes currently they are in the minority by a vast margin and stand little chance of introducing any legislative changes regarding the separation of church and state. Still it is of concern when a legislator professes allegiance to the religion of Islam, indeed takes the oath of Office upon their Holy book, indicating to me their belief in the same, no different than a Christian or Jew swearing upon the Bible. But there is a difference! That difference is contained in the book itself! It is, as explained by a Muslim cleric and scholar, that Islam is not solely a religious belief but a POLITICAL system well! Can I take the word of anyone that would swear upon their Holy text an oath in contradiction to that text?( the contradiction is their religious belief is their government as well )
  In the United States of America religion and government are separate entities entirely! No where in the Christian Bible or in the texts of the Jews does it say government is to be controlled by God! No, God should be the motivation for moral and ethical actions, but man has free will to exercise his judgement. Islam says, Mohamed is the head of state! The believer is bound to follow the instructions of Mohamed in politics and economic decisions. For me it is akin to swearing on the Bible an oath all the while saying, I don't believe all of it, just some of it. 

 For me I just see that as a contradiction. I have no issue with the religion. I have no issue with a person being a follower of Islam. I do have an issue when that may impact my government! I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I can't help but feel should these followers of Islam ever achieve a majority in government they could impose their religious teaching on the minority, both Christian and Jew. There justification being they are following the precepts of their religion. They did, after all, swear upon that text so I shouldn't be surprised that they are following it. I provided the very text for them to take the oath upon!  If that should happen would not the Islamic clerics be in charge of government? That's how it works in the Muslim nations we see in the world today. In fact the reason they are called Muslim nations. Ever notice the outcry if anyone where to say the United States is a Christian nation? Not according to the law it isn't!! That is what the response will be and heavily defended, even by Christians.  There are nations in the world that call themselves Christian nations or have a state sponsored religion but you don't hear them referred to in that way. Why is that? Because Christianity and Judaism are not political systems.   

 The founding fathers were all too aware of how religious doctrines can be applied to the populace. That was the concern. What if we had a Catholic president? If we had established Catholicism as the official state religion wouldn't the nation be bound to follow the rulings of the Pope? What if we had established Judaism as the official religion of the state. That could also be problematic in a nation where we declared, all men are created equal. By extension do we not have to also say all religions are created equal? For that reason we can not favor one above another. But what they hadn't considered was a religious belief that insisted on altering government, indeed religion as the government. They proudly declared and codified in Article VI of the Constitution " no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States " I am left to wonder if in their idealistic ideology they haven't left an open loophole. By including this bold declaration is the door left open to having the first amendment removed from the document by legislative action? Could Muslims, by a majority vote in Congress not repeal the first amendment?

 It is clear and a mandate by the religion of Islam that everyone must be converted or pay a tax. That is what the Quran says. It's true that many Christians and Jews will say that you must convert to Islam or be killed but that isn't accurate. You can pay a tax, a tribute to the ruling clerics and live. You don't have to say you believe in Allah or anything else for that matter, as long as you pay, up to 80%. Now you could " convert " to Islam by saying specific prayers and you'll be left alone. Submit to their beliefs and incidentally their " government " policies it's all the same thing remember. I'd suggest that is how they originally got so many converts. Submit, pay the tax or die. Your choice!

 I guess you could just say, how strongly do these folks believe. They say they are Muslims, followers of Mohamed the prophet. They believe in his teachings and promise to obey. So do Christians and Jews. I get it, I understand all of that. The difference for me however is this. Being a Christian I know that no where does Jesus instruct me personally to kill anybody, collect a tax from anybody, or insist I convert anybody. Yes I am to spread the word but it is up to you to either receive this word or reject it. I'm not to force you to do anything! Mohamed on the other hand does instruct his followers to do all those things as a condition to gaining eternal salvation! Now you say you believe all of that, all I can do is take your word for it. That's no different than a Muslim taking the word of a Christian. What is different is, what if you really do believe that. That's my point here, what if you really do? Your Holy text says it is fine to lie, cheat , steal, deceive  and do any number of things as long as you are doing it to convert me. As long as you are doing that to advance the cause of Mohamed you will be rewarded! My text on the other hand prohibits all of that so if I were a Muslim I would hope that the Christian is telling the truth. As a Christian I hope the Muslim isn't;  know what I mean?

 Well the bottom line is, can I trust you? Sure you can, I swear it. If you don't believe it does it matter what you swear on? No, it doesn't. But if you don't believe it why swear to it in the first place? You don't have to. There is no constitutional requirement to do so, you can affirm. That has always been so, it isn't anything new. In English law you have been able to do that since 1695 so the founding fathers knew all about that. But by swearing with your hand on the Bible or the Quran you are invoking the concept of God and final judgement on your soul! You are saying I believe that! Isn't that the thinking? It certainly is and also why few choose to affirm rather than swear. You wouldn't want to appear deceitful or unbelieving in a God. You are asking me to believe you and sending a clear message that if you are lying you are risking eternal damnation! That is what you are saying whether it the Christian God or Allah that is making the judgement.

 Call me an alarmist or whatever you choose. I'm just pointing out what I see as a contradiction. I don't understand how you can swear an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of America, a constitution that specifically guarantees the separation of church and state by swearing on your religious text that says God is the head of state. Which is it? 

This is the actual oath taken : I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. 

The text upon which I either swore or affirmed instructs me to convert everyone, by any means necessary to Islam. It is a mandate from my God! Can I support and defend the Constitution of the United States when the first amendment to that Constitution clearly states, religious belief is to be separate from government, from politics? I fail to see how if you are a true believer in the prophet! If you are not why aren't you saying so? Why not just take an affirmation without a Quran or Bible? It's true there is no requirement for you swear upon any text at all. You can take the oath simply by raising your right hand and saying so. That's my only point here. If you take an oath swearing upon your Holy book you are declaring you believe that book. If I take an oath swearing upon my Holy book I am declaring that I believe that book. So it comes down to this: what instructions are contained in those books? You can't just say I believe this chapter or verse but I don't believe that chapter or verse. It's an all or nothing thing. Unless of course you want to adopt the attitude it's all just for show anyway.  Then you have to say we are all practicing a deceit. 

 Well I can't see Muslims ever gaining a majority and changing the constitution. Still I'm very much aware of the possibilities. It starts with small things, subtle changes. The little introductions of culture. America isn't the white Europeans culture that is was in 1776, it has evolved. It is the white Europeans that allowed that to happen, by legislation. Slavery as an institution existed for 86 years in America. Yes, it was on the north American continent far longer, by that wasn't America. That was abolished, white Europeans fought and killed each other to accomplish that. Civil rights acts followed to codify the basic human right that we declared, all men are created equal. A government established on what some would say are idealist principles. Are those principles really an achievable goal? Well the track record of man isn't so great in that regard. If we are to be free should we also be free from God? According to the Prophet Mohamed that isn't the case. Our founding fathers established a Republic where the people rule. It is expected those elected to office will rule in accordance with Christian principles of fair play, acting in a Christian manner and all that implies. Religion and religious belief is not the test to rule, to hold office. In fact you don't have to believe anything at all! 

And so after this long discourse, this rambling thought, I am left with a single thought. How much should we believe? Can I believe any politician? Is there honor among politicians?   

pardon me

 The headlines in the news concerns the pardons/commutations issued by President Trump. That's not surprising considering whatever President trump does is going to be scrutinized, vilified, crucified and generally condemned. That's just the world we are currently in. I am always called a Trumpster, Trumpterd, or any other number of derogatory names and that's the world we currently live in as well. It's the polarized world of politics. At its' base is the struggle for dependence, not independence. The major opposition being the possibility that " free " stuff might be curtailed or just not forthcoming at all. Also the world we now live in.
 Now I'm not supporting Trump in these pardons. Well the fact is pardons aren't mine to grant anyway. That is his decision to make. I'm not aware of everyone that is pardoned and the reasoning behind those pardons. President Obama pardoned a total of one thousand nine hundred and twenty seven people, three hundred in a single day! That day, a record setting day for pardons issued, was also his last day in office. Why did he choose that day? I don't know, a parting gift? Well whatever the reason the choice was his to make, like it or not. I don't recall the news saying much about any of that. I don't recall the news mentioning any pardons he issued at all. Guess I wasn't paying attention. Well, whatever, as I said it is the choice of the President after all. They call that executive privilege.
 What we need to know and understand however is the difference between clemency and a pardon. Being granted clemency does not absolve the person of the crime. Their record remains. A pardon on the other hand is a complete absolution of the offense. The records are expunged and all civil rights restored to the individual. The news reports on Blagojevich, Milken and Kerick. Were they pardoned or granted clemency? Chances are you don't know that answer. Chances are you heard they were pardoned. They were not, they received clemency. That's the real news. All presidents grant pardons. Pardons can be granted for a variety of crimes, all of them federal crimes. President Obama issued more pardons to federal criminals than any other president in the last 64 years. Didn't hear much about that. FDR granted a total of 2819 pardons, Truman 1913, Carter 534, Kennedy 472,  Clinton 396, Reagan 393, George w Bush 189, George HW Bush 74. So far Trump has granted 10 pardons.
 I mention all of this for clarity. The news is often quick to report and sensationalize every decision Trump makes. The news often fail to explain anything at all. Now do any of those granted clemency by Trump deserve it? I don't know, I'm not privy to all the information. You do realize it is an application process. The President can only issue pardons for federal crimes. Yes, he is the only one that can do that. There is a process to follow. That process begins with having served a minimum of five years of the sentence. At that point you can begin the application process. There are many more steps and requirements to be satisfied. It isn't that the President decides hey I think I'll just pardon this guy or that. That's not how it works. All I'm saying is before you start judging you should or should not receiver a presidential pardon or clemency you should have the facts. Armchair quarterbacks abound as do armchair lawyers. Getting a pardon or receiving clemency is a legal process. Is politics involved in all of that? Sure is, it sure is. And every single president that has used that executive power has done so for political reasons at some level. 

moral fiber

 I read somewhere that there are those that have something to say and those that just want to say something. After ten years of writing I'm thinking I may be the later. I just want to say something. I say that because it is becoming increasingly apparent I don't have anything to say. At least nothing people want to listen to. I can only guess that is because they don't want to hear it. I can respect that. There is a lot being said that I don't want to hear either. Doesn't stop them from talking so I figure it shouldn't stop me either. That's how that works.
 The subject I like to talk about the most concerns morality and ethics. Now I'm not a particularly pious man although I believe in God and morality is certainly the providence of God, or whatever you wish to label that power. Ethics concern the actions and reaction of man as it related to others. Ethics are generally codified by civil law. It is the separation of church and state the founding fathers established and was concerned with. The reason is obvious enough if you read your history books. They didn't want the church interfering in government, the administration of commerce being of particular importance. Also religion can be wielded as a weapon as easily as any gun. Indeed religion and religious belief are one of the strongest motivators known to man. Perhaps the only thing stronger is wealth!
 I watch the news, listen to the radio and read many postings on social media. All of that leads me to questions. I often discuss those questions with myself, sometimes I share those conversations in this format. They are, after all, nothing more than my thoughts. Not unsurprisingly I sometimes get comments from people that disagree with those thoughts. I expect that but have a hard time when those people act as though what I said was a law or something. It's not, it's my opinion, my thought, and nothing more. I fail to understand why some grow angry when I support that thought or opinion, hey, I wrote it sooo.
 Well I do enjoy getting comments. I can say in all honesty I have never written any of these blogs with the deliberate intent to get anyone upset. Whatever I have written is what I genuinely believe. I admit it is a temptation at times to just compose something that will either please or anger people. Either of those are easily accomplished. But that would be pandering, and I despise pandering. Even when I'm being pandered too, I don't like it.
 Lately I have began to ask myself this question; When did it come to be more admirable to recover from a wrong than to never have committed the wrong in the first place? The answer I came up with is: probably the same moment we decide the reward on earth is more important than the reward offered in death. That is to say, when we decide we want it now! There was a day when the goal was to not make mistakes. Your reputation was everything, as was your word, your trustworthiness and your character. Today many wear their errors as badges of merit. The scarlet letter as an award.
 For some the more frequently they repeat the same error the more prestige it garners. Well because it isn't their fault at all. At least that is the case with the things they want to do that is. If it brings us pleasure or profit we will do that! If things go badly for us, I injure myself or others in some fashion, it's alright, it's not really my fault. All I need do is admit to that wrong and receive " support. " I can even repeat the same error repeatedly and receive continual support! Then I can lecture others about it using my " recovery " as proof positive. I can just grant myself amnesty or forgiveness for any wrongs committed. Very convenient. Really the same mindset as, everyone was doing it.
 Well that's just my opinion, my view of things. I've certainly made a good number of errors in my life so far. I don't like to speak of them, I don't have any desire to put those errors on display. I will keep on committing them as well, I'm not kidding myself about that. I suppose it is a generational thing but it is the way I was taught. If you mess things up, do whatever you can to correct it and try not to talk about too much. It's what Martin Luther King was talking about when he said, the content of your character. Your moral fiber! That's my opinion anyway. Yours may vary.

refulgence

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aureilus. 
This is a quote from meditations. Marcus Aurelius, emperor of Rome, and considered by some to be the last " good " emperor is the author. He was a stoic philosopher. He is one of my favorite people to quote as I find myself occupied with similar thoughts. I wrote some time back that I felt like there was little that could be said that hasn't been said before. For me it is just the way it is said that may be different. When I read someone else's thought but hear myself talking, that is a switch, the light comes on. Now I'm not saying I have ever written anything on the same level as Marcus Aurelius or any other famous person but I've had the same thought only to discover that someone like that has already said it. What I mean is discovering the quote after I wrote it. Ah, if I were only famous it would be me you would be quoting. That's an entertaining thought. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and expressing another's thoughts is an imitation. I have also discovered that you can go in search of a quotation to support just about any stance you want. You may not like the person who said it, but you can find the thought. 
 The quote I began this blog with is one such example. I didn't say it as eloquently as old Marcus but I share the thought with him. I 'm talking about mind over matter and I think that is also what he meant by that statement. We can not control the external, only control our reaction to it. That's the reason some are able to withstand physical pain more than others and mental pain as well. We can control that. 
 How firm is your foundation? That's what it comes down to in my estimation. I'm thinking about your mental health in this situation, I don't seem to have the ability to block out physical pain quite as easily as bad thoughts. But I think if you are firm in your core beliefs you can better withstand any assault on those beliefs. There are different names for this, resolve, conviction, and blind faith are just a few. Whatever label you wish to apply is not important. The importance lies in the strength of those foundations. What happens when those foundations are shaken? As Marcus pointed out, you are in charge of that, you decide how much it effects you! If you give that outside force greater power over you than you yourself exert upon yourself, you will be shaken.
 It's a strange thing really. A matter of perception. When the outcome of the situation, whatever it may be, benefits others in some fashion, you may be called a hero. The strength of your convictions won the day. If the result isn't so helpful to others, that is to say not what they wish, that same strength of conviction gets a different name. Stubborn, obstinate, ignorant or just plain stupid! Yes, that's the way it goes but you have control over that, not the external force. Strange also is that faith, " religious faith " is never questioned. If you state that is my belief no one is supposed to question that. Quoting a religious text is the ultimate authority. That's what it says, right here, irrevocable, undisputable and permanent. Deny that at the peril of eternal damnation! All that is required is for you to believe so. Yes, even that is an external influence subject to your acceptance or rejection. ( free will )  As Marcus expressed it, your " estimate " of it. What does that mean? Do you believe that at your core, your foundation? 
 Marcus Aurelius also said: "  It never ceases to amaze me: we all love ourselves more than any other people, but care more about their opinions than our own. " Now he wasn't talking about himself as an individual and I don't believe he meant it in that way. I believe he was talking in general. When he said " ourselves " he was talking about the Roman people.  Remember he was the Emperor after all. So I think he was just saying why should the Romans  place more value on the opinions of others than on their own?  This is in line with his thinking about allowing external forces to control our internal wants, needs, and actions. This thought can be applied today, to the United States of America. Without getting into too much political discussion why should we, as Americans allow " others ", think different cultures, to alter our conscience? That is to say, value their opinion more than our own?           Following Marcus Aurelius Rome went into decline, eventually collapsing on itself. The reasons are many, but one of them was outside influences. Another part of that was keeping the masses entertained. In America it is the promise of " free " stuff that is the attraction. In ancient Rome the plan was to distract the citizens from the fact they were starving to death, taxed to death, and living under a tyrannical rule. The Senate decided their fate, even " replacing " emperors on occasion. Eventually the whole system broke down and don't forget that Rome was a Republic. Coincidental? Well history does repeat itself. I also believe the same thoughts repeat themselves throughout the generations. 
 Marcus Aurelius was a stoic philosopher. That means he believed in dealing with what is, not so much with what you wish it to be. That's my way of putting that. The classical stoics are different than modern day stoicism. At least that is what I have read on the subject although I am no scholar of philosophy. That's simply because I don't think you can learn to be a philosopher anymore than you can learn to be a poet, musician, or author. You can learn to imitate, but not duplicate. You are either born with that or not. No matter how many hours of practice I were to perform I would never be Edgar Allen Poe, Eric Clapton, Picasso, or Mark Twain. 
 It is interesting to note that science appears to prove that. A study was done concerning personality. The study centered around the idea of nature vs nurture. As it turns out it was determined our personalities are something we are born with. As the author of the study put it, we are not born a blank slate, we are born with a personality. It would seem that no matter the outside influences we are exposed to our personality will remain unchanged. It is only our response to external stimuli that will alter our reaction. That's why even mild mannered, generally gentle people, will pick up a gun and shoot you, given sufficient cause! People both good and bad come in all personality types. 
 One more quote from Marcus :  Think of all the years passed by in which you said to yourself "I'll do it tomorrow," and how the gods have again and again granted you periods of grace of which you have not availed yourself. It is time to realize that you are a member of the Universe, that you are born of Nature itself, and to know that a limit has been set to your time. Use every moment wisely, to perceive your inner refulgence, or 'twill be gone and nevermore within your reach.

a decade of memories

 After writing about discovering I was actually born in the 1900's, a fact that just didn't dawn on me until I saw it in writing, I began to think more about the past. Now I was born in '53, yes 1953, we do need to be specific don't we, but I don't remember that. I'd say my earliest real memories are from 1958 or 59. For me, that is the beginning of my childhood. I was eighteen in 1971, the beginning of adulthood. At least that is supposed to be the beginning, the government says so when it comes to military service, not so much if I choose to buy cigarettes or vaping products. Ah, but that's another issue altogether. But as I thought about that it occurred to me that my childhood memories cover just about a decade. Yeah, it's a little more, but not enough to notice. I'm a product of the 1960's. That's correct, that's my decade. So I think it is a fair statement to say that my childhood memories cover a span of about ten years. Childhood memories to last a lifetime. It's that way for all of us, more or less.
 Now the amount of that time, that influence , we carry forward will vary with everyone. Perhaps it has something to do with our perceived successes and failures. I wouldn't know about that, I'll have to leave that to a sociologist or psychiatrist. I can speak for myself though. I have carried many of the lessons I was taught with me to this day. I'm aware of that, most of the time. I'm always aware that what goes around comes around, and I'm certain it will come around again, those same lessons I mean. Yes even when I'm told that I'm outdated, old fashioned, or just not intelligent. I cling to the lessons I learned all those years ago. Of course I was on the outside even in the sixties, not agreeing with the " popular " view all the time. I wasn't a stoner, didn't drive a VW mini-van didn't attend Woodstock and say far out man! No, I was a bit more conservative even then. No long hair, no faded jeans, leather vests or headbands. I didn't even wear bell bottoms. I did listen to some rock and roll, some blues, and some Motown. Not a big fan of the Beatles and their trippy music about yellow submarines or Lucy in the sky, with diamonds. I was a very poor rebel. Mostly I was just poor but didn't know it. I had a place to live, food to eat, most of the toys I wanted, and was content.
 I am grateful for all of that. As I said ten years of childhood to last a lifetime. I'm grateful that mine are all good. The truth is we forget about the bad if we learned to appreciate what we have. The thing about childhood memories are they belong solely to us. No one can tell us different, no one can question them. If that is what we remember, that is what was. It's a certainty. In this world few things are certain. I can get lost in those memories at times but always come out smiling. Yes I'm grateful for a childhood like that. A decade of memories. A decade of growth that has served me well throughout the years. A solid foundation. That was the gift I was given. Whenever life gets me down I can return there and be refreshed. Lots of wonderful people live there, in my memory. I can hear their voices, hear the laughter and see their smiles. They give me advice, encouragement, and sometimes, sometimes they just listen. 

a safeguard

 I have seen several postings about different states wanting to do an end around with the electoral college. That is to say a legal means to subvert its' intended function by the founding fathers. The majority of these states are historically democratic. Still unhappy with the results of the last election it is an attempt to change the rules. And they can legally do so at the state level. They can pass legislation determining how the electors vote. It can be that they must vote in accordance with the popular vote or they can vote according to their conscience. The constitution does not bind them to either, it is up to the individual states. Remember it is the electoral votes that ultimately elect the president and the vice president, not the popular vote.
 Now I'm certain the majority of you know about the electoral college to some degree. We have become far more aware and informed over the last three years about that. The debate rages on with both sides arguing their cases. I admit on the surface it would appear that the popular vote is the only fair way. Yes, that seems simple enough right, just count the votes and the one with the most wins. One and done. But then we wouldn't have a republic at all, what we would have is a simple democracy. That may very well work fine for the Boy scout troop or the church social ice cream social but hardly sufficient for a nation. And that is why we have a Constitutional Republic.
What is a republic? A government of the people, by the people and for the people is the standard answer. A representative government. Ours is founded in our constitution. When it comes to electing our president it is the electors that are our representatives! That is important to understand. We elect our congressional representatives by popular vote. Electors however are not. They are either appointed or elected by said representatives. The ones we elected by popular vote.
 How many electors are there? Five hundred and thirty eight. Why that number? The house gets four hundred and thirty five chosen individually in their respective states. One hundred are chosen by the Congress in the same fashion and DC gets three. It takes 270 electoral votes to win. But why do we have these electors? Hamilton explained it best in the Federalist papers. In short he said it was a check against tyranny and mob rule. The electors would vote independently using the popular vote as an advisory. Each state gets to decide if there elector must go along with the popular vote or not. The thinking being the electors would act independently as they are not elected officials in the sense they are bound to a political party. Yes , they are supposed to be nonpartisan. These electors can change their vote anytime before the official ballot is cast. They can also be removed and replaced at any time before that vote.
 It is the responsibility of your representative to either vote for or appoint the electors. That is one of their functions, perhaps, their most important one. That's because the electors will be the ones choosing the president. These electors are supposed to be chosen for their integrity, not political loyalty to a certain party. The electors are supposed to vote for the best candidate using the popular vote as a guide to what the people want. Those wants are to remain within the scope of the Constitution. If we were to solely use the popular vote a full 55% of the voting population wouldn't even be considered. That's because a full 55% of eligible voters do not vote! So that leaves 45% divided, for practical purposes by two, to choose our president. Is that fair? I know, I know, everyone should vote. The founding fathers knew that even if everyone that was eligible were to vote it is an impractical and unrealistic expectation that the votes would be accurately counted, indeed that the votes could even be collected. So that's one reason our representatives, elected by popular vote in each state, either appoints or elects an elector to represent the people in the presidential race. Those 538 electoral votes can easily be tabulated and a majority or 270 achieved. Each state receives equal representation thus making the election as fair as possible.
 Of course there is much more to all of that. I don't pretend to be an expert in these matters. I do read and try to understand the who, what and were of things however. There is no reason I shouldn't given the technology I have before me. I can just type in a query and receive the answers. Truth is I can search for the answer I would like to get as easily as getting an answer I don't like. It's up to me to figure that part out though, possibly the more difficult part of the task of learning. So I looked up all this stuff to make sure I had the facts right. That's the way the electoral college is supposed to work and one of the reasons why we have it. I did learn that it would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. Even if every state made it mandatory that their electoral representatives voted in line with the popular vote the college is still required by the constitution. It is a safeguard against mob rule.
  The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your State has the same number of electors as it does Members in its Congressional delegation: one for each Member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators

how civil

 Two more Police officers were shot in Baltimore yesterday. These officers were part of a task force attempting to apprehend a suspected murderer. Now there is doubt that the suspect ever fired a shot and no explanation is forthcoming on how the officers were wounded. But I suspect they will figure that out. The suspect was shot and killed at the scene. One officer was shot in the leg and the other in the stomach. The officer shot in the leg has been released from the hospital and is recovering at home. The other is still in the hospital in stable but serious condition. So far this year 35 people have been shot in Baltimore city. 

 During the press coverage of this event the doctor in charge of shock trauma addressed the crowd. He stated the condition and severity of the wounds the officers had sustained. He thanked the first responders for their quick reaction. Then he stated that a fellow officer had applied a tourniquet to one officer that most likely saved his life. He explained that a person can bleed to death in as little as five minutes. Then he said we wanted to take 30 seconds more for a public service announcement. He proceeded to tell of a program he began called, stop the bleeding. This program aims to teach every citizen how to properly apply and use a tourniquet! Now that struck me. I haven't heard that lecture, or had that training since I was in the service. We were taught that because we just might need to know that in our occupation. Yes, being in the military is an occupation that is associated with wounds and trauma! First aid is vital. But I thought, do we now need to teach the general population this emergency technique? Yes, it is certainly a valuable thing to know, it certainly does no harm to educate people about this. Yet I'm left with a realization that a doctor, a professional man and city leaders feel there is a necessity to teach this. A necessity, think about the implication of that reasoning. The feeling is there is a good likelihood that you will need that knowledge. As I said not that you shouldn't know it but rather the feeling that you would need to know it. Yes, I may encounter someone choking or experiencing a heart attack, those are fairly common events I'm likely to encounter. But now I might need to apply a tourniquet! I might need to do that because of gunfire in the city! 

 We hear the cities being referred to as war zones. The inner city anyway and those areas of high crime. And now, in Baltimore anyway, we are feeling the need to teach the citizens war time survival techniques. We started with shelter in place, going into lockdown, and now we are teaching war time first aid. Sure makes me wonder where all of this will lead us. We have to pass through metal detectors, be subjected to pat downs, and wear identification cards on lanyards around our necks. We hear public service messages about if you see something, say something. Be alert for suspicious packages and people. Don't make eye contact with strangers. Secure your belongings. And now in Baltimore be sure to carry your tourniquet kit with you. Yes, they have a kit for that and you can get one for completing the training. You can even add that training to your resume. Just another thing that will become the norm, as common as people learning CPR, maybe you'll get a pin you can wear. A civil society? How civil is it when you start training civilians in battlefield medicine? Makes me wonder.  

Allow me to add these comments. I fully support everyone learning to apply a tourniquet. I in no way want anyone to assume, infer, or otherwise misconstrue what I am saying here. It's a wonderful thing. My only point was the " necessity " of teaching this vital life saving technique. Hope that clears any misunderstanding up. 

Happy Birthday

 I was out looking for a birthday card for one of my oldest friends. I mean he is old, lol, at least older than I am, by five months. There are certainly a large variety of cards to choose from. From the serious to the silly and everything in between. They have ones with lights and music. Really the variety is staggering. Well, so is the price when you think about it. When you care enough to give the very best, that'll cost! I was always told it is the thought that counts and I say that to myself while glancing through the cards. For some I think the economy card will do just fine. Personally I don't look to see what brand of card it is, it is the thought that matters to me. I tell myself that I'm sure others feel the same way but there is that nagging doubt. Damn that advertising!
 Anyway, I'm looking for something humorous. This card is for another guy and you can't get all sentimental, I'm no millennial! No, I'm old fashioned that way. So I'm looking at all the ones with fart jokes, strange smells, something to do with guns, glasses or dysfunctional body parts. You know, all the stuff guys like. Then I see this card that says something about an old friend. Hey, maybe this is a good one. Pulling it from the rack the cover is black with white lettering, nothing too feminine looking. It says something to the effect that there are twenty year old kids that are now being called adults. Opening the card it says Happy Birthday to someone that was born in the 1900's. Well, I was speechless for just a moment. I resemble that remark! I too was born in the 1900's. It is a fact I really hadn't considered before. But there it was, in a birthday card. Wow, that's a low blow isn't it? Well they say fact is stranger than fiction and I'd have to agree. Yes I realize I saw the turn of the century and that was an amusement. Somehow I didn't realize that was twenty years ago. But now, to realize I was born in the 1900's? Crap, my great grandfather was born in the 1800's, so was my grandmother.
 That's the card I purchased and put in the mail. Cost 55 cents to mail it. Didn't cost anywhere near that in the 1900's. In 1965, when I was twelve, a stamp cost four cents. 1965 seems like a long time ago now, didn't a few minutes ago.  I'm not one that writes letters often but will do so occasionally. Last one I wrote cost almost a dollar to mail. At the post office they have this card with a slot in it. If the card, letter, or whatever doesn't fit through the slot, that costs more. Now it's a package! Won't go through the automatic sorting machine, you know the one that was going to save money because the postal worker wouldn't have to do that. One machine can replace a worker. Yeah, except they had to hire five other workers because the machine requires an attendant, an operator, a supervisor to supervise all of that and routine maintenance and repairs. We need to raise the price of postage. Well when you care enough to send the very best postage certainly shouldn't be a factor.
 Yeah it's pretty funny alright, born in the 1900's. It's true however and one day that will be said with the same feeling as we say the 1800's today. The 1900's will seem like a long time ago, why it's the past! History even. Imagine that. I was born in 1953 and even then I thought the 1800's was ancient times. They had cowboys and Indians back then, covered wagons and coal stoves! They didn't even have an electric light for God sake. I wonder what they will saying when we are half way through this century? I'll have to live to be a hundred to find out. Well I guess then I'll be able to tell of the days when a telephone had a cord and dial, the car didn't drive itself and televisions weren't ten foot across. Yup, born in the 1900's. Oh and I just realized that today is Abraham Lincolns birthday. He was born this day in 1809. Yup, honest Abe born in the 1800's. Being born in the 1900's that doesn't seem so long ago now does it.  

on topic

 I'll begin by saying I take responsibility for whatever I write. It is incumbent upon the author to be clear in their ideas, thoughts and meanings. I still recall the instructions from English class, who, what, where, when and why. I don't always succeed. So, that being said I take some consolation in that others are misunderstood as well. That must be case if you read the comments left on postings in social media. The comments, more often than not, have little to do with the subject matter. More often they are concerned with a why, than an acknowledgement of the subject at hand. Reading through them I feel like Judge Judy at times, it's a yes or no answer! Attempting to explain why a fact is a fact, but that it isn't always a fact, because I don't like this fact, really doesn't change the fact that it is a fact. You know like ,Trump is the President. It's a simple fact. 

 Now that happens most often in political discussions and for good reason. We can review history and find fault or justification for just about any action. History does repeat itself. Man may change the name of things but the action remains the same. Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socilaist! Just what the heck is that? A socialist that wants people to think they are going to have a choice. That isn't what socialism is all about but sounds good to the uninformed. Sounds real good if you believe you get to choose what free stuff the government will provide. That way I won't have to spend my money on necessities, I can spend it on the things I want. I can vote to have things like medical care, housing, food, child rearing and education paid for by the government. Yay, I get to spend my money on cell phones, drugs, alcohol, new cars and clothes. 

 I guess the frustration for me is this; it's hard to have a discussion when you aren't talking about the same thing. And that is what seems to be the case a great deal of the time. It's not just with my posts. I see it all the time on social media.I grow annoyed with the straw man arguments and hypotheticals. Deal with the facts before you. In short, stay on topic please. That's what I want to say. Be less concerned with what if, and more concerned with what is. 

 You know you can train a dog with reward. Give them a treat for performing a task of some kind. It doesn't matter what the task is, sit, roll over, guide a blind person, sniff out drugs , whatever. Reward them and they will perform that action every time for the same reward. But people are different than that. Yes you can get them to comply with reward. That will work for a short time anyway. Problem is they will begin to demand more. Unlike a dog that will be content with that biscuit, man will want the biscuit and gravy. Once he gets that, he wants salt and pepper. Soon he will demand a four course meal. Seems to me we have a whole lotta folks demanding more reward for the same old trick. What we need to do is remove the reward and focus on the action. Perform the action and then get he reward. Stay on topic, stay focused, and hold people accountable. Concentrate on the problem, not the reward. 

a single reward

 I was thinking, what if heaven is a single moment in time. The scientists talk of a singularity, a moment in time, the moment of creation itself. The big bang! So what if the end is a singularity as well? It is certainly permanent, I don't think that can be argued. The beginning and the end. The concept of never ending, infinity, can not really be grasped by the human mind. We deal in the finite. So why wouldn't death also be finite and the place of out resting finite as well?
 Of course I am talking about the soul, the energy that is us. That our bodies are finite is obvious. What we concern ourselves with after death is what we call our soul. But what is our soul? Is it our collected memories? Is it just an energy contained within a shell and released after death? Where does that energy go? Energy, we are told, is infinite. The form transforms but that is all. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. But what of our consciousness? Does that end with death? I think that is what concerns the religious among us. For those that do not believe death ends that. But the faithful dream of heaven, in one form or another. A place of eternal rest and reward for living a good life. We will be joined there by all those we have loved. Our life goes on, eternally.
 But what if heaven is a singularity? That is to say a specific moment in time. For each of us that moment would be different. That is to say, a chosen moment, a moment chosen by the one who created us. Perhaps that is what is written in the " book " that is referred to. Or do we get to chose? Then having chosen we spend eternity living in that moment, with the ones we loved around us, in the time and place of our finest hour. All memory of sadness, sorrow, pain and grief erased, utopia achieved. Perhaps that is the reward. To live in that singularity, that consciousness forever. For me that is a comforting thought. Energy must be, by its' very nature, infinite. It can't run out. So if that portion of my energy, that portion called consciousness, is forever occupied with maintaining my singularity, the universe won't miss it.
 What if we are faced with that choice? Can you think of a single moment in time that you would want to live forever? Would that moment be a favorite memory? Or would that moment be joy felt for someone else? How would you choose? What if you just couldn't decide? Would that moment then be assigned, or is that what spirits are all about? Are spirits in search of that single moment? It's quite the decision to be faced with. Is that decision final? It would have to be as all other memory is erased. At the very least all unpleasant memories would have to be, how else to enjoy eternity?
 Perhaps that is the goal here, to create that singular moment in time, a place for eternity. All our religious teachings are instructions for building just that. All the major religions offer a reward. An eternal reward for a life well lived. The reward is offered in return for treating others in the proper fashion. Yes, the reward comes after the action. In death we are rewarded for our collective actions in life. A return to a singularity. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. The reward is a forever consciousness. We don't want to lose ourselves. That is the ultimate loss. It is that we grapple with, some by prayer and others by denial. The faithful pray for eternal life, while others deny. A single life, a single reward?