time and context

 Isn't it funny how places stay the same even when the name changes? What I mean is, the store was an IGA, and about 14 years ago changed to Save-A-Lot. Now I and others will sometimes still call it the IGA. The person saying that knows exactly where they are talking about but the one hearing it may not. The name changed, the place did not. Would still be true even if the building was gone. Remember where the IGA was? That's what I'm talking about. I've learned a few of these places since moving to Greensboro. The old timers might say, four corners, and now I know exactly where they are talking about. Strangely the younger residents in Greensboro may not know that at all. The place is the same, but in this case, the name disappeared. There are other cases of this as well. I know a place to go fishing, it's called the Tomb. The reason is there is an actual tomb there of a revolutionary war colonel. Years back it was just there, on the bank of the river, out of sight really and untended. Today the land around it has been made into a small park, a fence around the tomb and maintained by the county. I don't remember the name of the park, I still say, the tomb. Place hasn't changed.
 It's the same thing as asking for a Kleenex, we all know that's a tissue. You may or may not get an actual Kleenex. You might get a Puffs brand or Scotties. Strange how a name brand can become a generic term. Stranger still is, I think that is probably a good thing. Places can do the same thing. Now for me I say I lived in East Hampton. I never say, the Hamptons. The Hamptons is any number of places, East Hampton is one place. In my mind that is how it is, the Hamptons? Which one? I would never say I'm going to the Hamptons! No, I'm going to East Hampton or I might say, home. Our home never changes either, at least not in my thinking it doesn't. If I say home, I mean East Hampton, unless I'm at your house and tell you I'm going home, then I'm going to my house. My house may or may not be my home, depending upon context. But my house can be home no matter where I'm living at that time. Same as a Kleenex is a Kleenex, even if it is a Puffs.
 All of that depends upon time, place and context. What where you taught, where were you taught it and what did it mean. Do you go uptown or downtown? Does it make a difference? I'm usually going uptown although I enjoy going downtown. Where I grew up uptown was downtown, or you could go down hook or below the bridge. Of course in my day we might say we were going upstreet as well, maybe they still say that back home. The home in East Hampton I mean, not my home in Greensboro. My house in East Hampton isn't there any longer, torn down to build a new one. Still with my old friends I could say, you know where my house was and they would know exactly the place I am talking about. I've been in Greensboro long enough to see some building disappear altogether and some just rebuilt or renamed. There was the Greensboro Deli when I first moved here. It was a little country store almost across the street from Taylors' garage. Taylor's garage has been in that spot since 1919 as the sign on the roof used to proudly proclaim. The sign blew off in a storm a few years back. But the Greensboro Deli was torn down and replaced by two rental properties. Fine new houses sitting on the edge of the river. That probably happened ten years ago. I still remember the old bridge, since replaced by a new updated version. The old carnival grounds was right there by the bridge. now the carnival grounds have moved to the new fire department property out on the highway. It can get confusing. It hasn't been that long since the carnival grounds moved so you have to ask, the old or the new? Time, place and context. Three things very important to understanding the conversation. My grandmother would say, get the Hoover. She meant vaccum cleaner. Radio's have stations but the television has channels, why is that? We say do you have cable? What are we talking about? My grandson says he doesn't have cable, just streaming services. Will that change over time as well? I saw a meme on Facebook that says I bought a television, built in antenna. I don' even know where antenna is. drum roll. Time and context. The place stays the same however. 

too dangerous

 The right to vote. Since I was a child I was taught that was one of the most precious things an American had. I was taught how it was my civic duty to do so. To be well informed of the issues, to listen to the candidates and make my voice heard. We had defied a King and fought a war of independence to secure that right. Yes at first you had to be an American or naturalized citizen and a male to vote. Interesting to note, although not taught today, is that the constitution itself never restricted the right to vote based on race, creed, or gender, that decision is up top the individual states. There were in fact women and people of color voting in our elections long before the 13th amendment. But women's suffrage secured the right of women to vote and the 13th amendment secured that right for people of color. Thing is, those rights were never denied to either group in the Constitution. In fact the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence for that matter, do not contain a single reference to race, skin tone,  sex, or religion. The very first mention of race appears in the 15th amendment ratified in 1870. The Confederate Constitution written in 1861 is rife with such references! It stood in stark contrast to the Constitution of the United States of America. My point simply being the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and indeed the Declaration of Independence were all " color blind " documents. It is the constitution of the individual states that regulated all of that finally overridden by federal law, the law upheld by the constitution of the United States of America, the law the founding fathers intended. The very reason they wrote, " all men are created equal."
 Why do I mention all of this? The reason is a simple one, I'm concerned with the upcoming election. The concern is not so much with which candidate wins, as with the fairness of the vote itself. There is so much talk of mail in voting, a system everyone agrees is ripe for corruption. What I find upsetting is this claim by some that it is just too dangerous! Too dangerous, a revolution was dangerous, being a suffragette was dangerous, marching for civil rights was dangerous! Yet literally hundreds, no thousands of lives were lost fighting for the right to vote. And today I hear, it's inconvenient and dangerous. And what political party is pushing this agenda? The Democrat's. The very party that refused the right to vote to minorities and to women. Remember it was that party that authored the Confederate Constitution clearly stating their views! And today the Democrats want mail in ballots, they say to ensure everyone gets to vote. The string of excuses for not having in person voting grows everyday. A campaign of fear and intimidation is being used to force this. The newest gambit being, if you are an election judge you will get covid 19 and die! Yes, you can go to Walmart, the Liquor stores, any number of places, and interact with thousands of people as long as you wear a mask and social distance , that's no problem. If you're election judge however, it's a death sentence! Yes this from the party that would deny the right to vote to minorities. The party that now panders to that minority block for votes making grandiose promises that they never keep. The party that suppresses that same minority by telling them they are victims, they can't do it on their on. they need the help and support of the Democrats! The Democrat's that are now kneeling, with their Kinte scarfs, tearing down statures of their past heroes in a desperate attempt to secure the minority vote. The same Democrat's releasing prisoners because it's too dangerous for them to be in prison, masks and social distancing only works at the Walmart! The Democrat's returning the right to vote to Felons! Why? For the vote, that's why.
 The right to vote. What is a solemn obligation now being used as a bargaining chip. The Democrats don't have a very good track record when it comes to that. They lost the civil war to those that fought for what was right and just. Our constitution stood the challenge, not that hate filled, racist document composed by the Democrat's. And even after the war was lost, it was a Democrat that Killed Lincoln putting a Democrat and southern sympathizer in office. The man that subsequently returned all lands back to those southern slaveholders that started the war in the first place. The party that tried it's best to block the passage of the civil rights act in 1964. Yes, those Democrats! And now, now it's too dangerous to go to the polling place! 

choices

 There is the question of religion and religious belief. It is something that appears to be on the decline here in America. And in my opinion, I have mentioned this before, the trend is toward a more convenient faith. One filled more with entertainment and proclamations rather than repentance. But beyond that it is my feeling that the purpose of religion is to establish the rules. That is to say, the determination of right and wrong. There are many, and this isn't anything new, that feel right and wrong are flexible states and change over time and circumstance. All the while those same people will tell you the word of God is infallible, inflexible, a constant in the universe. It is only in the interpretation of his word that man fails. Now that's convenient and has been utilized over the centuries many times. Perhaps the most notable use of that reasoning was with the protestant reformation. That was when Martin Luther and others decided the Pope was not the direct representative of God here on earth. It was an acknowledgment that the Pope was just a man like you and I. Being a protestant I do agree with that. But setting all of that aside what is the purpose of religious faith? Is it ultimate consequence or ultimate reward?
 My thinking is this, when I was young and receiving instruction in religious matters I was taught a simple lesson, I was taught disobedience led to ultimate consequence. In short, screw up and you go to hell. That was the lesson plan. Yes, he is a loving God and will forgive those that ask with true repentance in their hearts. Thing is, you have to mean it, asking isn't enough. Penance is due. And what is penance? Self punishment is the answer. That means holding yourself accountable for whatever wrongdoing you have committed. Forgiveness, from your God, stems from that act; performing the penance; not simply asking. But the reasoning has changed. Now we are saying if the Bible or whatever religious document you follow, doesn't explicitly say I can't, that means I can. Very convenient when you know what you are doing is wrong but want to do it anyway. It is the same reasoning being used in civil law today. It doesn't say I can't, therefore I can. There is no ultimate consequence, only reward. And that reward is simply what I want, has nothing to do with what is right. If I want it, it's right. As I said, not the way I was taught.
 The thing is we are talking about consequence beyond death. That is the basis of faith, the belief that there is something beyond this mortal earth. It is also the belief that we can control, to a degree, what that next " circumstance " will be. It all depends upon the consequences of our choices in this life. If you believe your choices do not have any consequence after your death, you most likely aren't concerned with faith, or the practicing of that. And then there is the question of ultimate consequence or ultimate reward. Christians, at least this Christian, was taught to not seek reward for the sake of reward, but rather to do right for the sake of right. Reward is given to those that earn it, not those that ask for it.
 The same should apply in society. There must be consequences, before reward. It's what we call the law. You don't get to violate the law whenever you choose to do so without paying the price for that decision. Just asking for forgiveness isn't enough. There must be consequences. The removal of consequence only encourages further wrongdoing. That is the reason for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those documents are the law! Changing those documents is like changing the Bible. A new interpretation usually to allow a choice without consequence. And isn't that the ultimate goal in all of this? Choice without consequence? Well, depends on what you believe. Personally I believe there will be consequences.  

The News

 Snippets from the news. Maryland researchers have determined the parents of school aged children have increased their alcohol consumption during this covid crisis. No kidding, close all the parks, close Chucky Cheese, tell the kids to stay inside, and guess what? Mom and Dad need a drink! Well Mom and Dad have to spend all day together too, any wonder everyone needs a drink? BTW domestic violence has taken an uptick as well. There is also concern that child abuse is on the rise. Well, corporeal punishment anyway, which in todays world is child abuse! Mustn't ever tell children no or impose any discipline on them, have a drink instead.
 Then I read where New York State has passed legislation that says, if you go to traffic court, are found guilty and fines or fees imposed, you don't really have to pay them. The state can not suspend or revoke your license for non-payment. In fact they have also created an easy payment plan for your convenience. What to speed, drive recklessly or otherwise violate the traffic laws, no problem, you can do that on the payment plan! If I were the comptroller of New York I wouldn't be expecting too much revenue from that plan. Why pay if they can't take it away. That should be the new slogan for the DMV. The reasoning is low income and minorities can't afford to pay the fines and that's not fair. Same reasoning behind that bail reform and that's working out well isn't it? Well next is I can't afford to go driving school, pay for insurance, buy a car, or pay for maintenance on that car. The State should provide me with all of that because, well I can't afford it and that's not fair. A Lincoln Navigator should do just fine thanks.
 Another snippet of news was explaining how spray painting slogans of hate speech on buildings is really a form of street art. Yes, if you are protesting and begin defacing property by spray painting " approved " slogans on buildings that isn't vandalism, it's art! Yes, I actually heard that narrative from an elected official. Those folks have a right to peacefully protest. Well I agree with that,  the first amendment says that. Thing is it doesn't say vandalism is a part of that. And the use of tear gas is just cruel! The police should be asking these peaceful protestors to please stay behind the barricades. But should they choose not to comply just stand down, don't do anything about that, just ask again, politely. And if they choose to tear down a statue or two, that's just fine.
 I also heard that federal agents are abducting people off the streets, sticking them in unmarked vans, and whisking them away, never to be seen again! Just because these folks are attacking the police, destroying private and public property, is no reason to abduct them! News flash, that's really called being arrested for criminal activity. The vans are unmarked for a very good reason, wouldn't want those peaceful protestors to overturn that van, set in on fire, and harm the peaceful people that are being abducted would we? No, we have to do our best to protect them. It's really the same logic as vandalism is art. It's just this art is invisible.
 Well that's only a few things I heard in the news that amuses me. All these researchers finding out amazing things. Parents drinking more, who would have thought. And I keep hearing that it is hot outside and I need to drink water. Whew, good thing for meteorologists or I'd never know about that. 

figure it out

 I don't think of myself as a poet or a writer of any kind. I'm just someone who occasionally writes a poem or a bit of prose. That doesn't make me a poet or an author anymore than me singing a song makes me a singer. I think those titles must be bestowed upon you by others. I do see a lot of people that make all sorts of claims these days, self identifying as this or that. It's something I don't place much stock in. We are identified by the perception others have of us, not by looking in the mirror. Is the person in the mirror really what others see? I'm thinking in most cases the answer has to be, well not entirely. That thought came to mind this morning after I started to write a post, unsuccessfully, several times. Yes, I'm having fits and starts. Isn't that an odd saying? One I don't hear people using much these days. Well I suspect that depends upon your age. It's an older expression. I have found that sometimes when I employ such phrases, sayings, or a bit a dialect unfamiliar to others, they mistake that for originality. 

 When I choose to write poetry it usually comes to me as a complete thought. I seldom change the wording from what I first wrote down. It isn't something I spend hours doing. The truth is I seldom edit anything I write as what I wrote is perfectly clear to me. That is why I don't think of myself as an author or a poet, there job is to make others understand what they are saying. I just put it out there for you to figure out. I admit it doesn't always work out well. It's also the reason I am sometimes misunderstood. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, just misunderstood. That's something else I feel some folks get confused about. I can choose to be wrong, I don't always have to be right. But I'm right, when I choose to be wrong. My right and your right don't always agree. If you look in a mirror your right is always on your left, doesn't change it though. 

 Anyway I started writing this because of a few lines I had scribbled on my note pad. I keep one next to the computer. The wife and I had taken a ride through the countryside, if you are a frequent reader you may recall that, and after getting home I jotted these few lines, " The sunlight blinked through the trees as we rode along, the radio playing a favorite song, what joy there is in the simple things, if we just take the time, to look and listen in space and time. For time shall pass, one day gone, a moment at a time, but that time is preserved in our mind, until we exist no more. " And then I quit writing the thought complete. It has been resting on that pad and again I find I don't want to make changes. Which leads me to another thought, perhaps aging is nothing more than the preservation of the past, for eternity. I'm thinking each of us have something to remember, to add to the collective consciousness that is humanity. It isn't something you need to understand, it's something I want to understand. You have to figure that, for yourself. 

ID

 On Sunday morning on Maryland public television there is a show called, Songs of the Mountains. hosted by Tim White. It comes on at four and seems like a fitting way to begin the day. The musicians on there are those that play on the circuit, traveling from town to town. Most I have never heard of as I'm not a big fan of gospel and bluegrass but do enjoy listening to it. I am always amazed at how many really talented people there are making music. a talent I surely don't have despite attempting to do so. But this morning they had a guest that I was surprised by, Kyle Petty. Yes, that Kyle Petty of nascar fame. Not that I'm a big fan of nascar either but I know that name. I wasn't aware that he played and wrote songs. I gave him a listen and he ain't bad. That wasn't as surprising as something else, he was sporting a man bun! Say what? Yes, Kyle Petty wears a man bun. He's sixty years old and grey haired with a man bun. I'm sorry, just a little too trendy for me. I just wonder, what's up with that fashion choice. He is wearing blue jeans and a checked shirt, that's expected, maybe a can of dip in his back pocket, they didn't show his backside, but it is what I would expect. Guess I'm just stereotyping him based on a perceived culture.
 I've thought about this fad and fashion stuff before. I've always been a bit conservative when it comes to that. That is to say for the most part anyway, I've had my moments when I stepped outside the box. Thing is when I did that I was well aware of what I was doing. Yes it really was a fashion choice. That choice was about sending a message more than anything else. The message wasn't always clear to me and I'm certain confusing to others, especially those that knew me. What the heck? There were times when I wished to draw attention to myself, and times when I wanted the message to be, stay away from me. It has been said clothes make the man and that holds a great deal of truth. We do tend to change our ways just a bit depending upon dress. It seems to me those lines are getting blurred more every year. What I mean by that is we tend to dress less for the occasion. I've heard dress for success but now it's dress less. The current joke is people at work without their pants on because they are working at home on the computer. I'm in my bath robe when writing the majority of these posts. Trust me, you don't want to see that. I don't have a " cam " on this monitor, no need for that.
 So I was thinking about this fashion stuff and how it sends a message to us. Consider this trend of the " saggy " pants. What message is that trying to send? I'm certain all of us have heard what the original message that was intended to send in the prisons. But what message is it supposed to send on the street? I'd say it was an aggressive statement, I'm a tough guy, maybe been in prison, I'm no one to mess around with, I can wear my pants like this and I dare you to say anything. That's the message I get. I remember the whole hippie thing and those fashions. That style was supposed to let everyone know that you were " cool " man. It was a snub at society in the sixties. Just a little before that white tee shirts, leather jackets and poodle skirts did the same thing. I think it is fair to say that style does reflect our personal politics and/or cultural identity. Something people these days seem to concern themselves with a great deal, this identity stuff. I've always known who and what I am, not being confused about that. Yes, sometimes I put on a " costume " to appear to be something else. But that is to send a message to others, not to myself. Perhaps that's why I have never been overly concerned with fad or fashion.
 I wonder too if that is the reason some of those socialist or communist countries have their citizens dress alike, everyone sending the same message. In reading about that the lack of any dress standards is related to " social progress " but I don't agree with that. I do think there should be some limitations on that as far exposing ones' body parts! In India their constitution allows them to wear whatever is comfortable for them, toplessness is common in that society, like a National Geographic magazine article in the Amazon. But some call that progress. Some will say it should be the normal thing, that if you're not comfortable with that, you're just uptight man. I say dress is a part of establishing a civil society. We are sending messages with our dress.
 I don't know what the latest trend is, except for that saggy pants things. I'd say that was mostly being practiced by blacks and Latinos with a few white guys in the mix. I don't know what the white boys are doing. Goth was a thing for a short time, but didn't really catch on. I don't know, wearing your ball cap backwards is the last thing I really took note of. I find that strange as it was supposed to be a red neck thing! Hey, your neck won't get red if you keep it in the shade. And if you turn that hat around that visor will shade your eyes from the sun. Sorry it just looks stupid to me. It's like putting those wagon wheel tires on your pick up truck, just looks dumb. It's a mixed message. I like to drive a pick up truck but I won't use it as a pick up truck. Maybe it's the whole identity thing again. Of course I hear you can go to a therapist these days and discover your identity. LOL, I only need to look in the mirror. I guess I'm just happy being who I am. I am confused when others don't see that. Oh well, all I can be is me. it really is as I wrote awhile back, " My name is Ben, that's who I am, and all I'm ever gonna be, I tired to be someone else, but, it just wasn't me. "  

normal

 In just forty four days we will celebrate labor day. It will seem a little ironic this year, don't you think? I'm thinking we should rename it to Essential workers day. Maybe all those businesses like Walmart and the Liquor stores could close for that day, you know give the workers a day off. I don't expect there will be any parades. We can still barbecue and have family gatherings, at least the family that has been living in the same house together could. As I understand it, if I were to go to a barbecue at my sons house in New York, I'd have to self quarantine for two weeks before going to his home. I question how many people are actually following those guidelines. A two week stay in a motel isn't an inexpensive proposition. But the narrative says it could be two weeks for the virus to be detected and the Maryland coronavirus isn't the same as the New York coronavirus therefore I have to quarantine to be sure the Maryland coronavirus doesn't get loose in New York! Wouldn't do any good to be tested in Maryland, declared to not have the virus, go to New York and two weeks later have the virus. But if I have my temperature checked I can go to Lowes or Walmart because well, I'm not sick. Maybe I could just have my temperature checked at the border, there is a coin shortage so maybe use the toll collectors to take your temperature, get a stamp, like going to the nightclub. Okay, you can go in. Make an entry into the contact tracing database. Wait, what, a type of passport to allow you to travel state to state? Now entering New York, please have your papers ready!
 Well I wandered off track a bit but I was thinking about labor day being so close. This summer has certainly been different. I had considered going here or there only to be reminded, it's closed. I have to say it hasn't really restricted me as the wife and I don't go many places anyway. A ride in the countryside and a milkshake from McDonalds is a day out. We are set in our ways I suppose. On the ride to Walmart we take a certain route. Along the way we check on a herd of goats, seeing where they are today. Sometimes grazing in the fields and at others clustered around a bale of hay, I've noticed they always seem to be eating, guess that is what goats do. On another road there is a colony of feral cats. We check on them as well. Someone leaves food and water out for them, at least I think so unless they are someone's pets. If so, it must be the home of the crazy cat lady you often hear about.
 The summer will be gone before you know it. Kids will be going back to school, or not. My granddaughter said she needed school clothes. I told her, no, you need work clothes, welcome to reality. She will be 18 in Sept just a couple weeks after labor day. Her school is virtual this year, at least the fall semester will be, that's why I was teasing her about school clothes. She did say, she is not allowed to wear pajamas in her virtual classroom. She does have to log in, with a video feed so the teacher can see her. Sounds like the Jetson's to me. Although as I remember it, daughter Judy and my boy Elroy went to school in a physical building. I don't know, it all seems surreal to me but then again I'm old. I know nothing about this Zoom or whatever it is they are using. Used to be that after labor day things went back to normal. Not this year, maybe the next? Well that will depend upon November but I'm not going to think about that. The truth is a new normal will have been established. No turning back now. Two decades into a new millennium. If this is any indication the next nine hundred and eighty years should be something. I don't know how many of those I will see, not certain I want too to be honest about it. Guess all I can do is, shelter in place. LOl 

moving forward

 I went to Dunkin Donuts yesterday, the wife enjoys their iced coffee. I find it a little pricey but then again, I'm old. Sometimes my granddaughter will ask me to pick up something for her. I have to check my text messages to describe the coffee she wants, caramel, latte, frappe, foamy eye of newt or some such concoction. Anyway as I got to the window I was told the customer ahead had already paid for my order. I was surprised and left a bit speechless. I've paid for someone's coffee before, paying it forward but never had it happen to me. So, as I'm leaving I'm thinking I should get back in line and pay for someone else's. The wife says, you should have done that when you were at the window. Yes, you're right, duh why didn't I think of that. I just decided that I will do that next time I go to Dunkin Donuts.
 Now, not knowing the procedure for such a thing I thought, do I just say I want to pay for the person behind me? My first thought then was, that could be expensive. I mean, do you get to ask how much? And if you ask how much and it's more than you want to spend that could be embarrassing. I want to pay to forward, just not that far ahead! Hey, Dunkin is a bit pricey. A dozen donuts is eight bucks and drinks can easy go another six. The bill could be 15 to 20  bucks! I complain when it costs me that much for my stuff, I don't know about paying that much for another. I'll buy you a cup of joe and one donut though. My wife just says  I'm cheap. Well it's true she is the philanthropist in the family, generous to a fault. Especially when she gives away my stuff. Well in all fairness I did say for richer or poorer, just didn't think she would take that literally.
 Seriously though it was a pleasant surprise and restored a bit of humanity for me. There really are some nice people out there. I did manage to get a haircut as well. First one since all this covid started. Most people that know me, or read my postings know my feelings on the whole mask thing. I did wear my mask, without complaint, in compliance with the local directives. The young lady cutting my hair had a great attitude, even though she admitted to being nervous about catching this virus. She said she had responsibilities to take care of and certainly couldn't afford to just sit at home. Doing what needs to be done. I admire her for that. That's the American way! Having been inspired by whoever was kind enough to pay my donut bill, and that young lady cutting my hair, I came back home feeling a little better. We are going to make it, we will recover from this and continue on. America will move forward. God Bless America. 

a government of laws

 Have we lost sight of a fundamental principle in our republic? John Adams, yes that John Adams, wrote of a " government of laws, not of men. " And that sums up exactly what a republic is. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people as Lincoln said at Gettysburg. Adams, along with other scholars of the day realized that law is what would form a new nation. Laws agreed upon by the people that those laws would rule. And that is the basis for a constitution. Those laws are to be written down " enshrined is often used to describe that " in a constitution and subsequently ratified by a convention of the people. And that is exactly what happened.
 What is the purpose of a constitution?  To establish a new government is the short answer. Our constitution is based upon the constitution of the State of Massachusetts. That constitution was composed chiefly by one person. you got it, John Adams. It was ratified in 1780 and remains the oldest active constitution in the world. Yes, it has been modified by amendment over the centuries but it was the first. It guaranteed freedom to all. So much so that in 1783 Slavery was declared unconstitutional in the state of Massachusetts. Truly a new form of government had been established in that state. That constitution was the basis upon which our federal constitution was written. Not surprising considering John Adams was part of the constitutional convention. That convention lasted from May until September in the year 1787. Madison is given credit for the authorship of the constitution, along with Hamilton and Jay. The were also the authors of the federalist papers encouraging everyone to ratify that same constitution. That happened in June of the following year. The condensed version of those essays stress the importance of a strong federal government. The message is clear enough, a government of laws, not men.
 Adams and Madison agreed on a simple principle. That principle is, law. Just as the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud and all other religious texts delineate " law " so should a constitution. These laws, once agreed upon by majority ( at least 2/3 required in a Republic ) are written into the constitution as the last word. That is to say, the decision has been made, as when your parent said to you, that's the last word! It means, that's it. The reason Hamilton wrote, " We hold these truths to be self evident " in the declaration of Independence. Those truths were subsequently spelled out in the constitution and the bill of rights. Men have been attempting to change those truths ever since. Indeed that has become a profession, we call them lawyers. John Adams was one of those.
 As I listen to the news these days I'm hearing a proposed abandonment of that constitution. I can see it no other way when the proposal run contrary to what that document says. Take something as straightforward as the second amendment. The wording is clear enough, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The reason is explained prior to that declaration. Those founding fathers had a way of explaining things before speaking. Read the first paragraph of the declaration of independence as an example of that. Unlike today, they didn't end their recitations with, but it isn't fair. But let's consider what is being said with, a government of laws, not men. Just what does that mean?
 I believe it means a very basic thing, obedience. Obedience to the laws agreed upon by the majority. You have to settle for a majority because as we all know not everyone is going to agree. A simple democracy requires only a simple majority. Adams knew that, everyone knows that. And everyone knows that is nothing more than mob rule. It is where the 51 get to make the decisions for the 49. Works great when you are a part of the mob, not so great when you are not. And so a compromise had to be reached, two thirds is a reasonable number. That is the number our Republic has chosen, it's the law. Well that was the original thinking anyway, it would take someone far more versed in government and politics than myself to explain all the exceptions and circumstances that can alter that. That's where men, not law, get involved. If we allow men to constantly change the law, in the end we have changed the government. We will have created a government of men, not laws. And that my friends is a very unstable thing to have. Those government are subject to all sorts of calamity. Coups, revolution, and civil war are just a few examples of that. The British government wasn't a government of law, the King made the law. That resulted in a revolution, remember that? A new government was established, a government of law. Then we had a civil war over those laws. The southern states declaring themselves free of the Union, an independent nation. The Union forces quelled that rebellion and the union was restored. A nation of laws. And yes, one of those laws was the abolition of slavery in 1865, enforcing a law that was in contradiction to the constitution, the law of the land. And yes, much struggle and strife has followed on the heels of that great rebellion. It wasn't until 1964 and the famous Civil Rights Act that a true equity under the law was established. The truth is, that equity had been delineated many years before with these words. " we hold these truths to be self evident "  It was only a government of men, not law that prevented that truth from being reality. It is what prevents it to this day. If we, as a nation, uphold those truths and truly have a nation of laws not men, that will be realized. And that is the real American dream, that is what those old guys were talking about! They weren't the first to understand that. It had been understood in antiquity by the great thinkers and philosophers. The difference was, they were the first to create a new form of government, a government of laws, not men. 

fairly compensated

 I find it getting more difficult to write about positive things these days. I often have the news on in the background as I sit down to compose these postings. I hear the newscasters and my attention is diverted. It's mostly coronavirus and protesting these days. I hear snippets of stories and it is mostly gloom and doom. This morning I hear a little about some proposed legislation that would provide monetary compensation to relatives of anyone killed by police brutality. I didn't catch the details but heard it said: " that way the police won't be able to afford to kill anyone." My immediate reaction to that was, I really don't think a bad cop, with murder in his heart, is going to stop and think, oh wait, this is too expensive! I can't help but marvel at the stupidity of that remark. Really the stupidity of that proposed legislation. Well if we make criminal acts expensive, that will stop that. Punishing the criminal won't do it, make someone else pay! Well because Justice, Justice has become cash! It is a sentiment I hear all the time with the commercials on television. If you want Justice, sue them! Get the compensation you deserve! That's the message, it you aren't getting a monthly settlement or large cash award you haven't gotten justice. 

 It just seems to me that money, whether in the form of cash or entitlement is the driving force these days. Not that it hasn't always been so, it's just that more people are willing to openly admit to that.  But I just keep hearing that " compensation" is the answer to everything. Racism will be ended by compensation. You can call it reparations if that makes it sound more palatable to you, but it is compensation. The issue I have with that is the ones that deserved that compensation have long since passed. A debt owed to my father is not owed to me. That's my feeling about that. Coronavirus will be stopped by paying people to stay at home. We'll keep " essential " businesses open, allow " essential " workers to " be on the front line" but if we just pay for everyone else to shelter in place, problem solved. All it takes is that " economic " package, enough money and all is well. This virus will just disappear on its' own. Well, we will have a " vaccine " for it and then it'll be alright. Each year between 5 and 20% of the population gets the seasonal flu, with over 200,000 hospitalizations. That's acceptable, to be expected, a non-issue because, well, we have a flu shot for that. All those cases are nothing compared to what we would have if we didn't give out flu shots? Well, at least that is what we speculate anyway. no way to know for sure though, unless we went a year of two without flu shots. Amazing how that works isn't it? Don't forget, the common cold is a strain of coronavirus and we can't prevent that. But, you say, it isn't deadly. Well, maybe it was but humans have developed a resistance to it over the centuries, we don't know what the common cold did to people hundreds of years ago. But a vaccine will make someone a lot of money, maybe not this year or the next, but it won't be free forever! 

 You can call it by a number of names, socialism is one, but the goal is, everyone has the same thing. In other words, we all have the same amount of money, whether it is in cash, entitlements, property, or whatever. Everything is " fair. " Well because as long as I have everything you do, that's fair. It shouldn't make any difference how much or how little I work for that, I should get it anyway. The choices I make should have no bearing on any of that whatsoever. It's only fair if I have everything you do. Should I make poor choices, commit acts of violence or crime, it's only fair if you give me another chance! I should get another chance no matter how many times that happens. In fact, I probably should receive compensation. It's not my fault, therefore it must be yours. If from the moment of my birth I didn't receive exactly the same opportunities, housing, education, social standing, economic advantages and support as you did, you owe me. I should be compensated for that. Hey, it's only fair.  

 So just what is fair compensation? The answer to that is as varied as the motives of man. Is it money? Can money solve every issue if given out in sufficient quantities? What of property, what of material things? Should you receive those things as compensation? In the judicial system you are supposed to receive compensation sufficient to restore you to the condition you were in prior to the injury, no matter what that injury was. And that is where the waters gets muddied. How do you measure what's " fair? " It's pretty straightforward with material things, not so much with the emotional. Can you really be compensated for an emotional loss? Can you really be compensated for perceptions? What's fair? For me, compensation should only be given to the one that was injured. The deceased require no compensation. Yes, those suffering the loss shouldn't have to bear the burden of any financial expenses associated with that. It shouldn't extend beyond that. You can't compensate grief with money! Can greed replace grief? Can we really make committing a crime too " expensive " and that will prevent future occurrences. 

distance learning

 I was overwhelmed with birthday wishes yesterday. Facebook informed me that 73 people had written on my timeline. I am amazed, didn't think I knew 73 people. and for those folks to take the time to send a greeting and or a gif means a lot. I got a phone call from my Mom, my grandson, and two of my oldest and dearest friends. I don't figure a man could expect much more than that. Fact is, it was unexpected. I spent the day indoors as a heat advisory was in effect, but that was just fine. It was a relaxing day. 

 The local news centered around the heat wave. I have to say it was a welcome change from covid, covid, covid. There are times if I think if I hear that one more time I might become a liberal and start screaming at the sky! Of course I could say the same about the heat advisory, stay cool, stay hydrated, don't do anything strenuous outdoors. The cooling centers are open. They were showing folks where they could go and get a free fan. Reminded me of when I was growing up. That's all we had was a fan, no air conditioning at my house. Of course when I was a kid most people didn't have a/c nor did most businesses. Dad did have a used Cadillac that had a/c and that was pretty darned luxurious! Gas was close to 25 cents a gallon though and that caddy used a lot of it. We would go for a drive a half hour or so and get cooled off. And the news would say, it's gonna be hot today. That was about all they said about that. 

 I do question the emotional fortitude of people today. Sure seems like folks get all upset and excited about things these days, especially ones that can't do anything about. I hear shelter in place used a lot as good advice. Just cower in the corner is what I hear them saying. I did hear call the authorities, now the call is to defund the authorities. Then I wonder, who is supposed to respond? I don't know, seems like everyone is afraid of everything these days. And if they aren't afraid, they're offended. Then those folks are offended that I'm offended by them offending me. I'm offended that you're offended! I'm going to shelter in place.

 But here we are in the middle of summer already. The various school districts are making their plans. Distance learning, virtual classrooms, in person, hybrids, who knows. I'm certain this will affect the bus drivers. Here in Caroline county the school buses are individually owned and a contract with the school signed every year. I see a lot of them on the farms around here and so assume the farmers or their wives are the primary source for this service. I'm betting it will have an impact on them. It isn't cheap to own and operate a bus. My granddaughter tells me the high school will have classes, in person, four days a week. Two days for half the students and the other two days for the other half. Teachers professional days will be on Wednesday. Well, it'll be a different school year that much is certain. I had heard that heat kills this virus, but I guess that ain't so. Now I'm hearing maybe the cold will, but in the cold months we have flu season, and covid is a strain of flu so why would anyone think it will go away? 

 Well whatever happens will happen. I feel bad for the kids, especially the younger ones. They need structure and routine. I realize we have these child behavioral specialists that do something, not sure what that would be but, they agree with me on that much anyway. Of course I have seen the result of baby doctors, like Dr. Benjamin Spock and his child rearing advice. I'm not impressed with those results, nor do I think much of this " time out " generation. I was raised in a different way, the time was now, right now, instantly corrected no matter where or when. If the application of the hand or belt was required, I would be dragged out of the room, or store, or wherever and the corrective measure administered! There was no time out! It did teach you about cause and effect, I'll say that much for it. Gave a body pause to think before acting. The results of your actions would be immediate, might want to insure it was going to be a positive one. Yes, taught to not only not cry over spilled milk, taught not to spill the milk in the first place. By doing so you avoided that emotional response that made you want to shelter in place. Well a lesson learned in person sure beats any distance learning. The length of a belt was about as far away as I got and that belt was doubled over. 

 

reflecting on age

 I woke up to my wife saying happy birthday. Yes, I'm 67 today. My first thought , for no particular reason, was I first joined the Navy fifty years ago! It was in 1970 that I signed those papers, raised my right hand and took the oath. It's an oath I stand behind to this day. I was seventeen years old, a senior in high school and planning the future. I have to say things haven't gone quite according to that original plan, but overall, it has been a good plan. That first decision turned out to be a good one and one I can take pride in to this day. Funny thing about that is, all that seems so long ago now, the Navy I mean. I've been retired from that for thirty years, half again as long as I served on active duty. But I have to say I have enjoyed fair winds and a following sea just as was wished for me by those shipmates all those years ago. Seems like a lifetime ago, several in fact.
 It's not that I'm feeling old, I am old. The hardest part in that is to convince my mind of that. I've seen that meme on Facebook asking how older men get hurt, and the answer is by thinking they are younger men. There is some truth to that. But age is a state of mind. That's true but the state of our body plays a part in that. I have also been fortunate in that regard. Only one cancer scare and one heart attack, I'm doing great. There are those that would say, I'm a survivor! I don't look at it that way, I was lucky, nothing more. The years have passed, things happen, and things will continue to happen. All one can do is deal with it. Helps to have a plan. Thing is you can only plan for what you want to have happen, not for what will actually happen. That's the paradox in life. Plan all you want, life has a way of changing those plans. As for me, to be honest about it, I never had a plan much beyond joining the Navy. I never set any big goals for myself, no grand scheme. I've always done what needed doing is the way I see it. That's what we should do. I've never seen the need to pressure myself, no need to strive for a higher goal, no just do whatever needs doing is my thinking. Guess those teachers had me pegged back in grade school, if only I had applied myself. I wonder though what I would have gained? Material things, money, a degree of fame perhaps? Maybe, but I'm not complaining. I still have plenty of time to buckle down and apply myself, no hurry.
 Today I find myself looking back a bit. It's an enjoyable pastime. I do have to count myself lucky for that, there are many that don't enjoy that luxury. It was on this day in 1969 that man first stepped on the moon. I remember it well, watching those grainy pictures in black and white on the television in the living room. I remember the voices, all scratchy, with the pauses in-between. I remember my friends Mom ordering a commemorative medal off a cereal box that marked that occasion. She ordered one for me as well, as we share a birthday. Happy Birthday Barry Collum. Sadly that medal is lost, but I remember. I have vague memories of when Kennedy was assassinated. Kent State and the events there come to mind. Seems strange to think of that all as history, but it is, and old history to boot.
 Then I come back to the present time and listen to the news. So much of it is a repeat of the past. I have to question if mankind has learned anything at all. You know the " hippies " back in the day where nothing but socialists. Yes, they called it communal living to distinguish it from communism, because there was to be no leader. But it was at its' core, socialism. We all know how all that turned out. Yes people were turned on and tuned out. In the end it collapses, all socialist societies do. The big triumph of that age, that movement, was Woodstock. It is what is remembered as an extraordinary event. Thousands gathered in a festival of peace and love. That's the way we like to remember that but it did spell the end to an era. All the hippies went home after that except for a few stragglers, a few holders on. There are some still today, a novelty, a curiosity from the past. Far out man.
 When I was twenty someone sixty seven was old, real old. Now that I'm here I can see that it isn't that old. It is all a matter of perception. Depends on if you are looking back or looking ahead. I spend a lot of time looking back and as a result I have lots of time. Do you see how that works? No pun intended. Yes things change over time, all things. Social attitudes, fashion, music, the value of a dollar, all those things change. The majority of it I view as expected, it's going to happen. Sometimes it's amusing and at others it is just plain annoying. But what is truly upsetting is when the next generation and the one after that, begin to discard those core values you have embraced since your own childhood. When those succeeding generations dismiss those values as just silly traditions, that is what causes genuine concern. No, it causes anger! As an example take this whole kneeling during the national anthem thing. Some see it as a protest, it's no big deal. I see it as far more than that, I see it as an insult to my tradition, to my country. Yes, it's a big deal to me! Now I hear there is talk of changing the national anthem altogether. Just dismiss the Star Spangled Banner as so much poetry, as just another song. Those are the things that speak to the heart of who I am. Fifty years ago I did take the oath to serve my country. I took that oath seriously, it was a job I was willing to do, same as any other job. Why was I willing to do that? Well the answer is simple enough, someone has to do it. There are benefits associated with that job that I desired, it wasn't Patroitism that inspired that service, it was practicality. Still you have to remember that I believed in those values that I agreed to defend, with my life if required, and that hasn't changed one bit in these fifty years that followed. So when I hear that others would discard those traditions, those values, in favor of something less, and yes it is always something less when you surrender instead of fighting for your beliefs, I grow angry. And that is when you see those angry old men and women.
 It isn't so much politics, that has always been divisive and why we were told not to discuss in polite company. That has changed, a dismissal of common sense if you ask my opinion. What is at stake here today goes far deeper than that, it goes to the core of who we are as a nation. One nation, under God, is the key to understanding that. I hear many saying in order to be a great nation we should give everything to everybody without question or qualification. That is a great nation. What a foolish notion that is. We need to cling to what our founding documents outlined, our basic values, what we believe. Change the belief, change the nation. I did leave a remark yesterday on another post, an observation really. " If you replace tradition, you have lost tradition, and without tradition there is no glue to hold a society together. " It is the loss of that glue that troubles me. 

Hope revisited

 Occasionally the wife and I will take a ride down the back roads and side streets in Caroline county. We've been known to wind up in a different county and sometimes the neighboring state of Delaware. Yesterday we decided to go in quest of a place we had visited before but had forgotten the name and exact location of. My wife seemed to have a better sense of the place we were thinking about and so I made her quest master! I've noticed I'm allowed to assign positions when I appoint her in charge, not so much when I think I should be the boss. But anyway, it was decided.
 It's a funny thing because we had both been trying to remember the name of this place for about a week now. I don't know why I wanted to know or why I was reminded of it, but it was getting under my skin. I knew I had written a blog about this place, but when. I tried searching the blog archives without success. How long had it been? What month was it? I tried several times, modifying the search terms but without results. We had just had the air conditioning repaired in the car, it was a hot day, and a ride in a cool car was in order. Well you have to check out the repair don't you? Of course you do and so we set out. Reaching the end of the drive the quest master directs a left hand turn. We're off, heading in the general direction she believes will lead us to this place. It's just a small spot, on the side of the road, easily missed if you are not paying attention. The key to locating this will be a large wooden cross.
 Yes, we are looking for a cemetery. A tiny roadside plot of land with a fence on the road side. There is a gate in this fence, chained shut with a rusty lock. The gate is large enough to allow a farm tractor or other machinery to pass through, although I'm certain none has in many years. There is no other fencing. What I mean is this cemetery isn't enclosed by a fence, just the entrance blocked by a gate and and perhaps thirty five or forty feet of fence running parallel to the road. But what road? My wife keeps directing my turn at each intersection. We are enjoying the ride as everything is in bloom and the crops are growing well. The fields of corn at getting quite tall now. You can see where this field was planted earlier than another. We see the horses, cows, and goats grazing in the fields. People are mowing their lawns and working in the yards despite the heat. There is little to no traffic on these back roads and so I  can drive along slowly taking in the sights. Then I see it, that cross on the side of the road. I have to turn around as I almost missed it altogether. I pull off the side of the road and click on the flashers. Yes, this is the place. What is the name? Getting closer to the fence I can see the sign back in the plot, Howard's Hope. That's it, I remember now, Howard's Hope.
 I stood there and looked into that cemetery. The sign is there and in good repair. The ground however is overgrown and the grave markers aren't visible at all. The bible verse is still printed on the sign below the words Howard's Hope. I remember that now and how curious a verse it was to me. It reads, " If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are all men most miserable. " Just what is that supposed to mean. I went to the internet in search of some insight. The general idea I got was that we should not only be concerned with the material things in this life, but we must focus on our hope for the resurrection of the dead also. If we fail to do that, we will not be raised as is promised. It is a message of hope. Okay, but who was Howard? I don't recall any Howard in the Bible and St. Paul is credited with authoring Corinthians. Further research on the internet revealed there are four people buried in that plot of ground. The last one laid to rest there in 1871. Not one of them is named Howard.
 I'm a believer in fate. You will do as you have been assigned at birth. You can't know what that is. I also believe you can't change it. In short, it is what it is going to be. The question of just who or what controls our fate, who assigns that, is left up to us to decide. That's why there are so many variations, so many possibilities. Epictetus said, " all religions must be tolerated, for every man must get to heaven in his own way. " Fate will show you the way, is my feeling. But our fate is not the end of our life, that is also my belief. It is in that, that hope survives. An old Italian proverb says, hope is the last thing you will ever lose. If you lose hope, you have lost faith. You can't have one without the other. Is that what Howard was thinking about? Howard's Hope.
 And so fate had the wife and I search out that cemetery on the side of a country road. Neither of us could remember its' name. Is fate reminding us of something? In this time of turmoil, this time of uncertainty, hope is important. We are all hoping for the best possible outcome. Perhaps it was time for a reminder of hope and faith. We must not lose hope for doing so means we have lost faith. And truly without faith there can be no resurrection, no redemption and no reward.    

what's needed

 What is needed is reconciliation. That's what's needed. The first question to be answered in that is, how did these differences drive us apart in the first place? Well when it comes to race relations in America we have to acknowledge the issue of slavery. Yes, it existed as an institution in this country, the United States of America, for 82 years. Prior to that we were an English colony and so the English government is responsible for allowing that. Did you know that prior to the Europeans, the Native peoples held slaves? Yes, they certainly did and had an active trade in that going as well. A part of history seldom, if ever mentioned. But we'll set that aside for now. But in 1865, after fighting a four year conflict among ourselves concerning the practice of slavery, and yes slavery and its' economic impact on those southern slave holding states was at the heart of the matter, it was abolished forever. What followed was reconstruction. Reconstruction is synonymous with reparations. Reparations are a hot button topic to this day. Reparations are supposed to lead to reconciliation. That's the purpose.
 So what is reconciliation? The dictionary says it is to make amends, restore friendly relationships, cause to co-exist, settle a disagreement and make one account consistent with another. Is it possible to reconcile the past by reparations today? No, I don't believe that it is. Reparations paid a century or more later appear to be tribute, rather than an effort to reconcile. The payment is to maintain or establish an uneasy peace between the parties. That isn't a reconciliation. The ones doing the paying aren't the ones that caused the damage, and so do not feel responsibility for that. Those feeling they were cheated out of their reparations hold an entirely different view of all that. Their belief is their current condition is the direct result of those reparation being withheld. Had the past been different. The challenge before us is to reconcile the past with the present.
 There is no denying that this reconciliation has been an ongoing issue. Here we are 155 years on and still talking about reparations. Today the talk is monetary payments to descendants of those enslaved. There is a couple problems with that. The first, and certainly not the least, is it is estimated that about 10% of the current African-American population in the Unites States are actual descendants of those people. Incomplete and widely inaccurate records exist to verify any claim to such heritage. That presents the problem of who is eligible to receive those reparations. Reparations are to repair damages, not a reward for being a member of a certain race. Conversely it can't be dismissed that people of that race have been damaged because of their race. That is what civil rights are concerned with. From 1954 until 1968 those that were the descendants of enslaved people, those that perceived themselves to be descendants, and those that were members of the African-American race staged peaceful protests. and ended segregation, secured their rights to vote, and indeed secured basic human rights for all people, not just African-Americans. Yes there was conflict during those years, there was unrest. The cause was just that can't be denied. What was being fought for? Equality, something we hear a lot about today, and opportunity, something we seldom hear mentioned. In the civil rights era it was the opportunity to better themselves that black Americans were fighting for. They fought for the removal of barriers and an even playing field. Equality was the watchword, not getting something extra, even if that extra was owed to them. A reconciliation was the goal, one eloquently outlined by Dr. Martin Luther King is his famous dream speech. " We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. " Those are his words and he continued by preaching non-violence to obtain those goals. Dr, King dreamed of a reconciliation.
 The problem I see today is not unlike what Dr. King saw in his time. He took the correct path, standing up for what is right. He didn't dwell on what was wrong, he stood up for what was right. It's a message we all need to relearn today. I listen to the news, I read the postings on social media, and for the most part what I hear is, this is wrong, that is wrong, things are wrong! I hear whenever anything is challenged the cries of, we must be tolerant, we must be inclusive and accepting. We shouldn't defend our beliefs because others believe differently. In defending our belief we are just exposing ourselves as racists, bigots, any number of phobics , and an endless string of foul names. We are supposed to believe in what we believe, and, what everyone else believes as well!
 Tolerance is not reconciliation. They are different actions entirely. Unity can only be achieved by uniting in a common belief! It can not be gained by reparation, by accepting everything and anything without question, or by making exceptions to the rules. It is achieved by standing for what is right. It is not achieved through threats of violence. As Americans we need to regain our courage of conviction. And that means all Americans. All American citizens have the right to vote! All Americans now bear that responsibility. We are to exercise that vote in the interest of the greater good, what is the best for the country. We the people are the country, the government, and we the people rule this land. A reconciliation needs to take place. As long as there can be no discussion, there will be no reconciliation. Have we reached the point of irreconcilable differences? Is there to be a divorce of America? Separate but equal? Have we learned nothing from history? Or is the plan now to just erase all of that and start over? If so, where do you begin? 

investing in everyone

 Asheville, North Carolina is in the news for agreeing to make repreparations to Black Americans. It doesn't involve any cash disbursements, it involves the city investing in historically black neighborhoods. It's being touted as a long term solution. Now I admit I haven't read the entire article, done any study on this plan, just listening to the news reports. I saw this on Facebook yesterday as well. I made a comment stating it appears discriminatory to me. Yes, I expected it and Facebook didn't disappoint I was immediately attacked. How could it possibly be discriminatory if it was to benefit the descendants of enslaved black people? Well, my comment was simply, not every black person in America is descended from an enslaved individual. I was wondering how you are supposed to qualify for this? If the sole requirement is the color of your skin, that's discriminatory. Not saying anything more than that, it was my sole defense.
 Now I don't believe anyone today is entitled to anything based on what happened prior to 1865. No one alive today was a slave. Yes it has been a long, painful, process to get where we are today. Yes, people of color still face discrimination and prejudice today, many people in many ethic groups do. That is because that is the nature of man. As a general rule people do not like people that are different from themselves. Note I indicated that it is a general rule of thumb, not a blanket statement of fact. It is also the reason people assimilate into a society in the hope of fitting in. I believe it is the adoption of culture, religion and tradition that gains people acceptance into a society. The color of their skin will disappear. Remember the movie, Guess who's coming to Dinner? It starred Sidney Poitier and Spencer Tracy. Isn't that what was at the heart of that movie? For me it just showed how similar the two lead characters really where. The Black father was a retired mailman. He had worked hard all his life, sent his son to college and on to medical school. The white father was a successful businessman, respected in the community, that had raised his daughter to accept people for who they are. The mothers in the movie shared their stories, similar stories. That movie was a discussion of race relations in America in 1967. Following that movie interracial dating and marriage became more prevalent in America, more accepted. It was a step in the right direction. In the 53 years since that movie I've seen some changes. Have interracial marriages become the norm? I'd say at best, they aren't unusual anymore and do not draw much attention unless to be used in a derogatory fashion, as a weapon. Another thing we humans tend to do, use differences as weapons! I don't believe that will ever change.
 Anyway, back to Asheville and that situation. They have committed to invest in historically Black neighborhoods, whatever that is supposed to mean. They also issued an official apology for the past. I'm not certain what value that has to anyone. An admission that history existed? An admission that slavery is wrong? Seems to me Americans fought a war, brother against brother, to resolve that question. The practice was abolished " forever " in 1865. I'd say that was an admission that it was wrong. In my view what Asheville has announced is nothing more than pandering to a demographic. The truth is, Asheville and many other cities and towns throughout America, failed to distribute funds equitably among the citizens. That was the function of the town councils, the city planners, the mayor, local governments. Why was that done? Was it based in discriminatory practices? Yes you could say that and support that statement. You could also say it was an economic based decision. It is the downtowns of America that made America strong. And who historically controlled the downtowns? Predominately white people for the simple reason they had the money, the land, and controlled the politics. Why was that? It's simple, white people were the majority in America, still are although the gap is considerably smaller today. The last US census recognizes five racial groups in America. That's right, five. There are whites, including white Hispanics, that's what the census says. that compromise 72% of the total population. Blacks and African-Americans are about 12.7% and Hispanics and Latinos 17.8%.  I know that adds up to 102.5% but that is what figures the government provide. Guess the same method as reporting covid cases, but that's another topic. Interesting to note is that in 1860 at the highest point in slaveholding history in America, slaves comprised 1.4% of the entire population. Although the number can not be definitely stated it is estimated that about 10% of all blacks in America today are descendants of enslaved American slaves. Which leads me to say, should the other 90% receive compensation for the color of their skin? And if so, isn't that discriminatory?
 Please note that I have not stated my opinion on whether reparations should be given or not. You may infer whatever you like from what I've written, the facts that I have presented. I haven't said one way or the other. Do I believe Asheville should invest in all the neighborhoods in their city? Yes I absolutely do. I believe every hamlet, town, city, state or country should invest in everyone.     

howdy cousin

 A few days ago I was contacted by my fourth cousin. I had taken a DNA test through Ancestry.com and she says that is the way she discovered me. She is descended from the paternal side of my family. That's a exciting thing as I know less about that side of my family than the maternal side. I'm anxiously awaiting new discoveries. She has already shared a family story that shed some light in a dark corner for me. Her grandfather had changed his last name to Richard from Reichart. That wasn't an uncommon thing in those days as immigrants, he was a natural born citizen however, didn't want the German name. The desire to assimilate into the population was that strong and prejudice was a factor in that decision as well. As I said he was born in America and so most likely did not speak with a strong German accent, although I suspect he may have had a bit of one. But whatever the case was, it was great to find out and have evidence to support that he was indeed a Reichart. Another door opened. 

 I'm looking forward to exchanging information with her. Sarah, her friends call her Sally I'm told, is a retired Social Studies teacher living in New Hampshire. She tells me during this pandemic she has been working on compiling all the photographs of ancestors and descendants that she can. That's quite an undertaking. I have gathered some, probably less than a hundred and the task can be overwhelming. She tells me she enjoys the pictures because it brings the person to life. I agree with her completely on that. Putting a face to a name has that effect. I wish her the best in that endeavor and will gladly provide her with whatever I have. She can see my family tree online but my subscription has expired. I'm going to have to renew that. I will be interested in seeing hers. 

 A few years back I was in contact with a Swedish ancestor. He was a psychiatrist, retired and following the branches on his tree. We exchanged a little information and then the interest seemed to fade. I haven't heard from him in a long time now. I hope he is well. It's an amazing thing making these connections. Just goes to show how we are connected to each other. For me I'm more interested in the stories these ancestors may have to tell. Yes having a photograph makes them more real but knowing something of their lives, their stories, really brings them closer in my opinion. Thanks to all the digital media available we can find those stories today. Its' interesting to me to try to place those stories in the context of time. Not being offended by the past, I turn my attention to the social attitudes and customs of the time. I wonder why. 

 Our common ancestor Christian Reichart arrived in the United States in 1856. It wasn't Ellis Island, it was Castle Garden, New York. That was one of many ports of entry at that time. Why did he come to America? At that period in history Germany was transitioning from a feudal system of government to a central one. The ability of the common man to own land was very limited. It is my thinking he came to America, as so many others had, for land and the chance to improve his condition. Germans had been coming to this land for well over a hundred years. I'm betting he was in touch with some and was encouraged to make the move. He was a farmer, and a farmer needs land. I haven't finished researching his story as I got distracted by his descendants. I do need to revisit Christian, his life and times. Now I have some help from a cousin. Should be fun.   

what's the dream

 The question was asked, what should the minimum wage be? I put my two cents worth into the pot. That doesn't count for much these days, adjusted for inflation I need to take out a loan to afford that. But anyway, I pointed out that minimum wage is an entry level figure, not a living wage. A living wage would certainly have to be a higher number. That entry level wage is for young people to gain work experience, learn new skills and increase their worth to the workforce. It is designed to prepare people for full time employment. We could discuss all of that in more detail but what's the point? Everyone wants more money, everyone thinks they are worth more money, and minimum wage will never be enough. Only those that have advanced past that stage will agree that minimum wage shouldn't be a living wage. 

 A living wage needs to provide for the expense of housing along with transportation, food, clothing, and various other expenses. That's because a living wage assumes the individual is living on his or her own. I wonder if in America we have priced ourselves out of that? What I mean is, our minimum wants exceed our minimum earnings. So the question is, do we adjust the wants or the wages? If we continue to adjust the wages where does that end? The cost of goods and services must be raised each time the minimum wage is raised. It's a never ending loop. So what's the answer? Adjusting out wants? 

 How much do you need to live? Well now that's the sticking point isn't it? My minimum requirements are certainly different than yours. In short what makes me happy may not make you happy. Living on your own is expensive in more ways than one. There is the emotional cost as well as the financial. It seems to me Americans have become more interested in the financial costs than the emotional toll. Could be that is why we have so many mental health issues. Perhaps, just perhaps the distancing of families has contributed to all of this turmoil. And now we are trying to replace family with cash! Trying to buy that happiness. Has the American dream become a nightmare? 

 Just what is the American dream? A home of your own, a white picket fence, children, and a little nest egg. Isn't that what we have all been told? Well, if you are a baby boomer that is what was portrayed anyway. After WW2 that was the deal. The economy was booming, housing was affordable, cars were cheap as well. You could get a job and support your family. The wife at home raising the children, the children having their toys, their friends and carefree. Yes raising a family, being a part of the community, watching your children grow into contributing adults, that was the dream. What is the dream today? I can't answer that question. I don't know what the kids of today see in their future. I'm certain they have dreams but what are they? I understand it can't be the same as mine as their experience is different. I was told that things were fine when I was growing up. Progress was being made in all areas. Things were better than in the past and would only get better if we kept our nose to the grindstone. That is what I was taught. Hard work, doing the right thing and perseverance will get the results you want. The future was bright. 

 Is that what kids are hearing today? I don't think so. Listen to the news and the future is pretty bleak. They are being told every politician is a crook, cops are there to kill people, and they will never earn enough money to live. The country is in a turmoil. prejudice and racism exists everywhere, and if you are white, your ancestors stole everything. You should be ashamed to an American. I'm having a hard time finding any positives. So I ask again, what is the dream today? Is it that in the future everyone has enough money to just do whatever they want, whenever they want to do it. There is no moral authority, morality is whatever you decide it should be? Laws only exist so you can sue other people, that's the purpose. Laws are not to restrain you, they exist solely to punish others. And the function of government is to provide you with all the basic needs, you shouldn't have to pay for those things. Your wages should only be used to buy the things you want. Housing, food, medical and dental? No, the government pays for that. Is that the new dream? Is the dream now, anything I want should be made affordable because I want it? I shouldn't have to choose between wants and needs. Just what is the dream today? I'm baffled. 

what's it gonna take

 I grow more convinced every day, there can be no discussion. I have tried, seen others try, and watched as conversations just degrade into arguments and in the end, name calling. This makes me nervous as that is what usually precipitates violence. When all avenues of talk have been exhausted, violence begins. At best the conclusion becomes, irreconcilable differences. Isn't that what they say when a marriage disintegrates? There is no more talking, no more compromise, indeed no compassion or empathy. Nope, it's over. It is that I am seeing today with far too many people on social media. I'm even guilty of that, having walked away because I no longer feel it worth the effort. And so I turn a deaf ear. And believe me that isn't an easy thing for me to do. Whether that is a good or bad quality I'll leave to others to decide, opinions vary widely.
 I wonder how so many Americans have wound up so far apart. Yes I know, the current narrative is it is a black and white thing, with other groups, minorities and issues thrown in the mix. I look beyond that and see Americans fighting one another, fighting over the values that are America. How is it so many Americans are so willing to abandon the principles that made America what she is? It seems to me those traditional values are now being discarded as outdated, old fashioned, ideas. No longer are we to take pride in America, to hold her banner high, to be an example to the world. What I hear now is we should all be ashamed of our past, ashamed of our ancestors, and ashamed to be Americans. Just how did this happen?
 Did this decline begin after WW2? Just five years after that war, the war that secured freedom for many countries, the Korean conflict began. Yes it was called a police action, it wasn't a war. The politicians didn't want to declare that as such, yet young men were being killed, young American men. There was unrest and protests. Then we had the Vietnam War, a protracted conflict costing thousands of lives. The troops returning from that were vilified in the public eye, called baby killers and literally spit at. Americans were divided on both of those wars. All the history since that time has been divided into American and Un-American. I have always been on the side of America, even when America was not perfect. It's called loyalty. I am not now, nor will I ever be, ready to surrender America.
 We fought a revolution to establish this country. We fought each other to keep this Union. And now it appears we will have to fight again to keep it. This time it is a political battle plain and simple. The left vs the right. It's a clash of ideology. It's really not that much different than the revolution, that too  was a struggle of politics and ideology. Taxation without representation is tyranny! Today I'm saying giving my tax money away to those that aren't Americans without my representation is also tyranny. Give me liberty or give me death. Today I see those that infringe upon my liberty by the imposition of permits, licenses, ordinances, regulations, and laws designed to circumvent the very principles outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There are those that pervert those documents to gain favor with the electorate! It's all about getting the vote, not about America.
 What event could possibly unify us once again? We had a brief spurt of that when the twin towers were attacked. For a time we all stood as Americans, united against terror and those that would use that as a tool. Sadly that has disappeared, forgotten relegated to history. That was only 19 years ago, yet there are many today that couldn't tell you very much about it. In fact we have a representative in Congress that described that as, " somebody did something" and that person remains in Congress to this day! Imagine, if you will , a representative in the Continental Congress saying that about the Boston massacre. Yeah, somebody did something. I wonder, what's it gonna take? This is a precarious time in American history. What's it gonna take for Americans, all Americans to unite once again? Benjamin Franklin expressed it best when he said, " A Republic, if you can but keep it. " And that is what is at the heart of all this political turmoil, the Republic. It's not a Democracy at its' core. It's not mob rule, not rule by sheer numbers, by force, no it is rule by representatives of the people. We the people! We need to elect those representatives that reflect our values, not the ones we feel will fulfill our wish list. The people are the heart and soul of a Republic. We should examine both of them closely. We shouldn't be turning to the government with our cries for help, the government should the child of the people, we are the parents! 

another day

 About ten years ago I saw a blog written by someone I knew from my past. That person wasn't what I would have called a friend, not even an acquaintance really, just a familiar name. I did enjoy the blog and thought it was pretty cool. I was struck by the fact that anyone could write and publish their thoughts to the world wide web. You could just start writing about whatever struck your fancy. And so I did just that. The fact is I have barely missed a day in all this time. The longest occurred just a short time back, almost a week straight without posting anything at all. It was a much needed respite.

 My original thought was to record my thoughts and memories for generations to come. I didn't expect many to read it beyond my family. Turns out my family rarely reads it and others, not related to me at all, do. It has morphed over time into something else, I'm not sure I can define what that is. So I'm going to say it does fit with the title, random thoughts and memories. More random thoughts these days than memories. It's a strange thing about memories. They begin every minute but have to age before they are memories, except they are memories the moment they are created. It's all very confusing sometimes. If it happened yesterday it is just a story. In my mind if it  didn't happen ten years ago or more, it isn't a memory. Do you know what I mean? Anyway I've been writing something ever since that first day.

 I wonder why this compulsion to write? I had no such compulsions in the past, at least not sustained for any length of time. I had written a few poems, mostly forgotten now. But now I have started a book, a string of poems, quotes, and a bit of history. I'm thinking maybe I just want to be remembered and the best way to do that is to leave reminders. Yeah I want something a little more than a granite stone with a name and two dates. I read an essay on " between " one time. I can't recall the author, that addressed that time between those dates on the headstone. Perhaps you've read it also. It is that time I'm writing about, pretty tough to write the before and after portion is my thinking. And then it also dawned on me. I enjoy writing because I get to speak uninterrupted! Yes, I like that. Don't we all? That's a problem with personal conversations, getting to finish your thought. We've all heard about listening to respond, rather than listening to learn. We are all guilty of that and I'm certainly no exception, in fact, I may be the biggest offender of all. I do find it difficult to be patient, to not respond or react until the other person is finished. But here, in my blog, I can go on, uninterrupted. I'm thinking that may be the reason I keep writing, keep sharing thoughts and memories about my life. The day will come when my life will be interrupted; permanently. Or will it? That's another subject altogether however.

 I still find it a rather amazing thing, this blogging and the internet. You do have the capability to reach thousands, millions even, of people. Going viral they call it, you could become a pandemic! Hasn't happened for me but I wasn't going for that anyway. I don't think that is something that can happen by a conscious effort on your part anyway. It just happens. I could expand my platform I suppose, whatever my platform is. Today it is very difficult to discern just what platform anyone or any party stands on. Also another discussion for another day.

I went and looked up the essay/poem I was thinking about. It is titled The Dash, written by Linda Ellis.

contradictory

 Can diversity create unity? America was created from a diverse group of people, that's what we are told. But that isn't the truth of it. America was created by a like minded group of people. In the beginning that is what it was. What was different about these people was their willingness to accept others into their society. Yes, a diverse group was allowed, indeed encouraged to join the group. The key feature in that was the " joining " of the group, what we sometimes call sharing the dream. Aren't we told that everyone can share in the dream that is America? Yes, we are. What are we told about that? Through hard work, dedication and clean living that is possible in America. If you join in , adopt the policy of the group, you can share in everything the group has to offer. Thing is, you have to join, in other words unite! Yes, it is called unity. Even the motto on our coins express that, E Pluirbus Unum, from many one. Unity includes diversity, but unity isn't diverse. That would be a contradiction in terms.

 America, the great melting pot. That is what used to be said, although I don't hear that nearly as much today as I did when I was in grade school. Is that because those immigrating to our country no longer assimilate to our country? That's what " melting " meant in that familiar phrase. A blending into American culture. That is what created unity. Yes neighborhoods were created by the various waves of immigrants, by the different peoples coming to this land. Birds of a feather and all that. It's human nature to gravitate towards those that share common backgrounds, religious beliefs, language or culture. That hasn't changed in the history of man. I don't believe it will ever change. Still the dream was, and still is in my opinion, to become united.

 In order to accomplish that we do have to agree on basic principles. Contrary to modern revisionists that basic principle was based in the Judeo-Christian traditions. That is what the first " Americans " believed in. The manner in which they practiced those beliefs can be analyzed, questioned, and shown to be less than perfect. No one is denying that. The practice of faith is an ever evolving  thing. Something I've noticed is what I call a more " convenient " faith these days. A relaxing of the " laws " so to speak. Not quite so restrictive on a personal level. You can sin, just a little bit, and that's alright. But I'm not getting into that discussion this morning. 

 In 1607 settlers landed at Jamestown and formed a settlement. Some say that was the beginning of America and I can understand that. Still, it wasn't America it was a British settlement, founded by entrepreneurs. The objective here was to make money. Yes, it was " sold " to investors with the promise of land, freedom, a new life with limitless possibilities, everyone is welcome. Why it's practically free! Does that sound familiar? It should, those wishing to sell something are saying the same thing today. 

 One hundred and sixty nine years later the colonists were fed up. High taxes and the imposition of laws that impacted their business. So a separation was declared. In that declaration we laid out the reasons for that. Then we wrote a constitution. In that constitution church and state were separated! And what was the reason for that? Can't have the church controlling the politics is the basic reason. The writers of that document were all too aware of what could happen when the church controls the politics. Remember a little thing called the protestant reformation? What was that about? Protesting the doctrines of the church? No, not really, it was protesting the politics of the church. The concern then being the Pope controlling everything. Interesting to note is that was also a big concern when Kennedy was elected President, many thought the Pope would just tell Kennedy what to do and he would do that, being a Catholic and all. Sounds silly doesn't it? Many didn't think so. 

 So today we have the Constituting ands the Bill of rights as our founding documents. Those documents are supposed to outline the " society " and adherence to those principles is what will create unity. They are what makes the United States united. It's the reason all immigrants are required to take an oath. A portion of that oath says: " renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty "  The objective being an acceptance and adoption of American ideals. Yes, to become one with America. It isn't having diverse cultures co-habiting in the nation, the oath is to become an American. Unity from diversity. 

 What I'm trying to say is this, perhaps we need to stop talking about diversity, and start talking about unity. We all understand that everyone is different. We all know that already. What we need to discuss is how we are the same. We can all agree on the goal, that's a universal thing. What we need to decide upon is just how to get there. Only when we all decide to work together can that happen. There can be no exemptions, no exceptions to the rule. Equality means equal. You can't gain equality by taking it from others. Diversity can create unity only when diversity unites.  

being social

 Yesterday I wrote, the problem with social media is people aren't being very sociable. I posted that, tongue in cheek, as it was just a fleeting thought. But the thought returned and I begin to think about what it is I was saying. I don't always know what I'm saying, sometimes I have to write it down to understand that. Well if you want to know what you believe, write. When I'm writing the words just flow out and at times I'm surprised. Each time I am surprised, I learn something new about myself.
 Now as far as this social media goes I'm thinking it is the delay in reaction that causes some to become unsociable. We all look for those " likes " and " comments " on our postings. If we weren't, we wouldn't bother posting them in the first place. It is certainly easier to elicit a response with a negative post. Something I've said in the past is, emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides. That sentiment has been expressed in different ways, it isn't a new discovery on my part. I was never concerned with such but have known those that made it a competition to grow their " friends " list. Ironically the greatest number of people of that list weren't friends at all.
 I do enjoy sharing photo's and stories with others. I enjoy looking at theirs as well. Many times however there is no explanation of just what we are looking at. Images without stories don't usually move us to speak, at least not much beyond, it's pretty or that's interesting. That's understandable when there is no personal interaction between the people. It is the same when these social media " friends " have never met in person. Our online presence is certainly different than our in person presence. It is the lack of facial expression, tone of voice and other non-verbal nuances that cause that. I don't believe many consciously alter themselves when online, although I'm quite certain a few do. I also believe the " delay " plays an important role in all of this. When online we do operate on a delay. We pause before responding, sometimes we erase that thought altogether and replace it with another, something you can't do in person. The " I take it back " response isn't usually accepted. Or when it is, it is viewed as a victory by the one it was said to. You are now indebted to me for that injustice. That's human nature.
 But I think the biggest challenge to social media is being sociable. The reason is a basic one. We are all living in a slightly different society. It's what we call the neighborhood. Each neighborhood is a little different from the next. As a result the way we react to everything is a little different. All of us do tend to adopt the crowd mentality. It is only the size of the crowd that differs and defines us. America is known for its' independent thinking. Isn't that why we resisted the rule of the King? The people that traveled to this land did so for gain. We can romanticize that all we want, but the bottom line was to improve our condition. The society we came from was restrictive and we broke free. In the beginning the crowd wasn't very large or very diverse in their thinking. That's why we say we all shared the dream that is America. Now the crowd has grown, not just in America, but in the world. On social media we are dealing with the neighborhood of the world.
  How do you react in a social situation? Are you one to share your thoughts or are you one that tends to listen? Anyone that knows me knows I will voice my opinion. I'm not one to just go along with the crowd. I will share my honest thoughts and beliefs with you. Am I amicable? That's not for me to say, I'm not the judge of that. The path to popularity has always been a difficult one for me. I guess that is simply because I don't really care if I get there or not. What I mean is, I have to be who I am first, and hope that you like that. Yes it's a disappointment when you don't, but not a tragedy. Is it my fault? Only when I know I wasn't being me, that's when I fail. I have learned one thing, if nothing else. You are responsible for your own happiness, no one can give that to you, you have to create that for yourself. 

ain't that cute

 I was reading an article, nothing more than what they call click bait these days, about a restaurant chain changing their mascot. The Big Boy is being replaced by a girl named Dolly. I wasn't aware that there are several companies that own and operate Big Boys and all of them don't always agree. It was stated that one group of Big Boy restaurants were not going to go along with this change. I had also never heard of this Dolly but it was mentioned she had been around since the 1950's as a spokeswoman for those burgers. Apparently there is no issue with using the name Dolly. Dolly Madison and Dolly Parton have not having expressed any objection to that; yet. In an unrelated issue the singing group Lady Antebellum, in an attempt to be more politically correct and in support of the BLM, have changed their name to Lady A.
 Now there is this other artist, Anita White, who has been using that moniker for a number of years. She has released a few blue's albums. They talked about it, didn't reach an agreement, so Lady A, formerly knows as, Lady Antebellum, is suing Anita for use of the name. They say they are not seeking monetary compensation from her, they are just going to use corporate bullies to take the name from her! Yes, that's correct. When a wealthy person, or group, use that wealth to hire a team of lawyers to get what they want against someone unable to afford a comparable defense team, that's bullying! But, I've wandered a bit from the story.
 The Big Boy is being replaced because the restaurant is now going to offer a chicken sandwich. There hope is to compete against the other burger chains that offer chicken. The Big Boy isn't a good thing to advertise anymore, not if you wish to attract the newer generations. Those folks want to eat out, but eat healthy. So, out with the Big Boy and in with the curvaceous Dolly. And a new advertising slogan to go with that. They are going to say, Dolly has the best CLUCKIN' chicken. Yes, corporate has decided a thinly veiled obscenity is the ideal way to sell this chicken sandwich to young people. It's a vernacular they will relate too! Well now isn't that all American. What fun. Look, it's Dolly, she has the best cluckin' chicken! Yes Susie, she does and it's cluckin' delicious. Ha, ha, Ha. isn't that cute. For me I just don't think that is appropriate at all. Of course I'm old and believe in teaching children respect, manners, and not to use obscenities! They may change when they age but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
 Yes I'm aware many will say I'm just stupid, old fashioned and don't know anything. There opinion and they are entitled to it. I'm not saying I will boycott the Big Boy or Dolly, honestly I don't recall ever going there anyway. All I'm saying is, just like crops in the field, the seeds planted determine what grows. Plant that seed in a young mind and it will flourish. I'm thinking we are seeing a bit of that right now. Have you read any of the signs these protestors are carrying these days? Pick a cause, pick a protest, it doesn't matter. I see young children, children too young to have written those signs themselves or understand their meaning, marching with them. I have seen graphic depictions of people and acts that have no place in the public eye. A civil nation? Not without teaching the children of today civility! Mommy, mommy, I want some of that cluckin' chicken! You just shut the cluck up! Ha, Ha, Ha, ain't that cute.