Amending what's right

 The title says what's on my mind this morning, amending what's right. It's an action man and societies have been doing since the beginning of time. If one believes the Bible we were given just one command, thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree in the center of garden. Man broke that command and the amending began at that point. Yes, we were instructed to not eat that, but it wasn't our fault, we were tempted and deceived. So we started to make amends. There is a lot of that going on in the old testament, sacrificing animals, building towers, and other stuff like that. Amends were being made by changing the laws. That went on until a new covenant was established. The old ways were set aside for the new. The reality is we made some amendments to the contract. I'd suggest those amendments are happening every day. But whether that takes place in politics or morality, we have a way of calling it enlightenment. Seeing things in a new light, making amendments to what was right, now deciding that it was wrong. Amendments are intended to makes things right. The challenge for mankind has always been, to do right. We failed at that, and instead made amendments.
 This is of course all predicated upon one assumption, that God is perfect. God, whatever that entity is, makes no mistakes. You can't amend (make better) perfection. So that leads me to a question. Why isn't man perfect? How is it that God could create an imperfect being, in his own likeness. We are told it is because we were given free will, the ability to choose for ourselves. Could it be that was a mistake? No, God doesn't make mistakes and so it is by design. We have to believe that or the whole thing makes no sense. So what are we trying to amend? Man is attempting to amend man is the only answer I can fathom. Isn't that what laws are all about? It is man's attempt at delineating right from wrong. The ultimate law is God's law, at first it was only one. Then there were 613 laws given in the old testament. That's what all the amendments were about in that chapter in history. But remember a new deal was made and amendments were made. Now there are only ten laws, what we call the ten commandments. Out of the 613 laws of Moses only ten were kept. It was an amendment. The question is, was it an improvement? Well it certainly gave us more leeway in determining right from wrong didn't it. We are taught however that the 613 laws of Moses were not from God, but what the Hebrews believed. The ten commandments came directly from God, a sort of Amendment to the 613 laws of Moses. There are some that would abolish all laws altogether.
 All of that is, of course, just my thoughts on such stuff, call it philosophy if you like. I don't think of it in that way, I'm just thinking about stuff. I try to relate the stuff man has been doing and saying for centuries to what is happening in the world today. I'm looking for a common theme, a course that has been followed. Seems like it is making amendments to what is right. That has taken place throughout the history of man, century after century. We call it by various names, ideology, politics, government, religion and all the deviations and revelations associated with all of that. The United States of America declared our right to be free. Following that we wrote a constitution to delineate what our principles were. Indeed the constitution begins with an explanation of just what the documents purpose is. Among them is the phrase, "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". It means to protect individual freedom not just for ourselves ( those writing the constitution at that time) but to our posterity (that is our children and our children's' children). That is what was ratified and agreed upon in 1788. Just three years later, 1791 ten amendments were added, what we call the Bill of Rights. An amendment being made to what we declared right just three years earlier. In 1992 the latest amendment was added, #27. What is that about? That concerns Congress getting paid, an amendment first proposed in 1788. Does it make the constitution any better? Is it an improvement?
 In order to amend something we first have to decide that it is wrong in the first place. That is what we are discussing today, and have been discussing since Eve was talked into eating that apple. She then convinced Adam to give it a try. We are all constantly barraged with calls to make amends, that is to say, improve things. To make things right. What we need to understand is that we should not amend what is right to satisfy what others believe to be wrong. When we listen to our own truth we will always make the right choice. Bad behaviors are learned behaviors. It is my belief we all inherently know right from wrong. Choose carefully who you listen too. As a general rule, if you have to be convinced by others that something is right, it probably isn't. It's probably what is right for them. 

Prudence or paranoia

 The governor of Maryland announced yesterday that all county schools could go back to in person classes. That was met with some surprise. Some were happy, others were upset. As with everything else today, it seems a lot depends upon your political affiliation. He did say it was still a county decision, he wasn't ordering anyone to do so. I haven't heard what Caroline county, the one I'm in, has decided, probably won't hear that until next week. My feeling is you have to start somewhere at some time. The "numbers" if you can believe any of that, say it is safe to do so. Personally I have no faith in those numbers either way, I believe you just have to take your chances, as we always have in the past when it comes to such things. Yes we get a flu shot but let's not forget over forty five thousand people a year die from the flu every year. But, people say, so many more would have died without that shot. How could you know that? Truth is, you can't, it's just a guess. How many times can you cross a busy highway without getting hit? Some people do that every day and some get hit on the first try. That's all I'm saying. But whatever the case, in Maryland everyone can go back to school, if their county supervisors allow it.
 You could look at that as a step back to normalcy. I didn't hear him say whether masks were going to be required, I'm assuming they will be. I don't remember when it happened but I do recall when hand sanitizer started being a thing in schools. Back in my day the best you could do was use that liquid soap in the bathroom. But somewhere in time hand sanitizer became a thing and it is the normal, expected thing. I'm wondering if these masks are going to be the same way. Will the kids be wearing masks with the school mascot on them? Will mask wearing become a normal thing in America the way it has become in some Asian countries? Is it prudence or paranoia? My feeling is their is a very fine line between the two. Germs and virus's are out there in the world, no doubt about that, and always will be, what is prudent? I caught some flack for stating I wouldn't wear a helmet on a bicycle. I was informed that it was the prudent thing to do and not to was to be foolish. Yes, basically being called a fool for not complying with societal pressure to be safe. Now I was talking about just riding a bicycle in general, were I to race that bicycle down the side of a mountain at high speed I would most likely feel wearing a helmet would be the prudent thing to do. If I started doing the BMX thing, going down ramps and launching myself into the air, yeah a helmet is probably a good idea. Riding my classic Schwinn cruiser around the block I'll risk it, I think I'll be just fine. That's the difference between prudence and paranoia.
 It does seem to me that the generations following my own have become a bit more skittish about living. I have to assume some responsibility for that as I did raise children of my own. Those children have gone on to raise their own. Now it's true that parents tend to be protective of their children and I'm guilty of that. I wonder though if in our "concern" if we haven't become too protective. When I was little, probably about six or eight, I was allowed to carry a pocket knife, I do so till this day. No, I didn't take it to school, that I wasn't allowed to do, not because there was any fear I would harm someone else with it, but I was going to school to learn, not play. Well, besides that my pocketknife was in my play clothes, not my school clothes. I wasn't given a rubber knife or a plastic knife it was a real knife that would cut you. Mom was nervous but Dad said, he'll learn. And yes indeed I did learn. Same with a gun. Started out with a BB gun and later got a shotgun. Not being overly interested in guns I never went any further than that. But I certainly wasn't told, guns shoot people! I learned that guns only shoot things you point them at and only when you pull the trigger! Yes, yes, there can be a malfunction but that doesn't mean you have to be paranoid about that, just use prudence. Don't aim it at anything you don't intend to shoot! A simple rule to follow and everyone is safe. I really don't need to carry my bullet in my shirt pocket like Barney Fife. Was that because Andy Taylor was paranoid, or was Andy just being prudent? Another little lesson we learned from those television shows we watched as children. Well, as I said, that was my generation.
 I'm not certain what lessons the kids are taking from television shows these days, if any. Seems to me the influence is coming more from social media than anywhere else. The problem with social media is there is no "unified" society at all. Not like when I was raised, in America, as an American, with traditional American values and traditions, taught that the goal was always independence. You don't gain independence by being paranoid. You accept the risks, face the challenges before you, and persevere. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps as we used to say. And it's time we started doing that again.
 A return to normalcy in America? That's what I want more than anything else today. I believe there are many who feel the same way. The time has come to focus. Let's get out there and do this thing! I'm not afraid. I don't suffer from paranoia. I'll decide for myself what is prudent, you can do the same. It isn't up to the government to mandate any of that. This is my life, my choice. Yes hopefully I'm well informed, aware of the dangers and all of that. That is how we make prudent decisions. It's unfortunate, that at least I have, lost all confidence in our government officials and media outlets to present me with the facts. That leaves me between prudence and paranoia. Thing is, I'm an American, independent and free, no time for fear. Just do what needs to be done. And I'd say we have a lot of work ahead of us all. 

something to consider

 I have mentioned this in the past but it came to mind once again this morning. Someone once said, if you really want to know a man, look at the books in his library. That was, of course, a long time ago. We still understood at that time that referring to man meant everyone not just the male of the species homo-sapiens. Homo from the Latin meaning human beings and sapiens meaning wise. Reading and listening to some these days makes me think we need a new definition. There are those today that think homo means something totally different and wisdom, well let's just leave that where it is. But I digress, let's get back to the library. There was a day when most homes kept a library, even when it only contained a few books. In America the Bible would always been the first one in the collection. The problem today being too many forgetting that it is a book and failing to read it. Beyond that basic foundation a persons library would be quite varied depending upon their interests. Books were valuable things back then, both monetarily and figuratively. As a result only the best volumes were chosen for inclusion. They were the things that person kept. And yes, a mans' library could shed light on his character and his beliefs.
 Today our "browsing" history could serve the same function. We even include an "in private" button to open up our browser when we wouldn't want anyone else to know what it is we are looking at. Those sites are not saved to our browsing history, although that information is far from private to anyone that knows anything about computers. Really it is more like hiding that book under your bed than anything else. Still our browsing history can tell us what the person is interested in. It is far more cluttered than the libraries of old as it does contain every thought, notion, or immediate interest that strikes us. You have to look for patterns, like a detective of sorts, to get a sense of what that person keeps in his library. My browsing history would certainly be a mess to sort through, I believe it is an eclectic mix ranging from politics to how to use a mirror link app on an Android phone. Our libraries (browser) today does record everything, every scrap of paper that we have ever viewed.
 I have a number of books. I mean real old fashioned hard cover books. I wouldn't call them a library but I do call them, my books. The majority of them are novels I can't deny that. I keep them around for their entertainment value, not for any knowledge they contain. The number of non-fiction, technical, or otherwise instructional books are fewer. Still, I probably have more of those than the average thirty year old of today would have. They may have more of that type of material on their hard drive or some form of memory, but not in hard copy. Interesting phrase isn't it when we ask for a "hard" copy. It's far more official, far more important in hard copy form. After my passing if a total stranger where to go through my things, excluding any computers or digital media, they would still be able to get a sense of who I was as a person. They would at least have a general impression of what my interests where, what trade I practiced, and what hobbies I may have had. There is a great deal of my life in "hard copy" format.
 Today we talk about leaving a digital footprint. What does that mean? It means that your library is visible to anyone and everyone. It is like inviting everyone into your home. The problem there being, you haven't had a chance to tidy up before they arrive. That can lead to misunderstandings. If you see a magazine or a book on my coffee table wouldn't you immediately assume it is of interest to me? That's a reasonable assumption, especially so if it is a text or instructional book of some type. Why would I buy a book on relay circuits if I wasn't interested in that? But with our digital footprint it isn't uncommon to step in places we had no intention of going! You know what I mean. You type in a word trying to locate something totally innocent, say a recipe for stuffed chicken breasts and you wind up with an advertisement for a plastic surgeon that performs breast implants! It is estimated that 4% of the websites on the world wide web are pornography sites! Those sites become a part of your digital footprint. That's why it takes a detective of sorts to figure out your library.
 Well I have no concerns personally about my digital footprint. You are free to browse my library all you like. Having nothing to hide I have no need to be concerned. If I did want to look at other stuff, stuff I didn't want anyone else to know about, I'm going old school, hard copy. But even then I have to procure that from someone, somewhere, and so it isn't completely secret. Banned books! Those books satisfy our wants. Humans want to know everything. We get upset when someone says they have a secret and will not share. Wars have been fought over such! Of course wars have been fought over what we did know as well. Could it be that we have reached the point where we just know too much? Has humanity reached a level where we have more information that we can possibly process? Are we getting lost in the library? Gotta admit, it was all far easier when we only had a few books, the basics as it where. A good solid foundation to build upon. Our libraries were our "common core" and now we have the web! And what is the purpose of a web? To capture prey. What is the purpose of a library? To entertain and inform. I wonder why we didn't call this the World Wide Library? Hmm, something to consider. 

incomprehensible

 I was involved in a short discussion yesterday with an unknown individual. I don't recall this persons name as it is not of importance. We held different views on the current situation/main stream media narrative regrading BLM, rioting, protesting and well generally everything. Now I expect to encounter these people online as I'm certain they expect to encounter people like myself and so am not usually surprised by any of that. Yesterday however my eyes did open just a little further. This individual who appeared to be an adult female judging solely by her profile picture, I didn't go to her page to investigate, states unequivocally. there is no law that says I have to obey the commands of the Police! I admit, I was taken aback a bit by that statement. You do live in America, right? She assured me that she indeed lived in America where we have freedom, and that freedom includes ignoring the police. That right is based on, presumption of innocence. Yes, that was her reasoning. Until you are proven guilty, in a court of law, you don't have to obey the police at all. Basically she is saying, if you refuse to be questioned, refuse to be detained, refuse to cooperate with the police, you have that right in America! Why? You are presumed to be innocent, that's why. I know, I'm still trying to process that myself. This is an adult voting in our elections? I ended my discussion with her at that point as I could see no reason to continue. If she in fact believes you do not have to obey law enforcement officers in the line of duty, what could I possibly say?
 My eyes did open a bit as I realized there really are people that haven't been taught about respecting authority. And it is respecting authority that is at the heart of the matter. I was taught to obey the commands of those placed in authority, whether they were my school teachers or the police or, when I was little, another adult. I was also taught that then, after having followed the instructions of those in authority I could appeal to a higher authority if I felt it was wrong. The important lesson however was to obey the authority first and question that authority later on. That is what the judicial system in America is all about. Your actions will be judged according to the law! Whoever breaks that law faces justice. That's how it works. It became apparent that, at least in this case, this woman did not understand that process at all. Makes me wonder how many of those folks are out there.
 This bit of discussion did, of course, involve police shootings. I understand the narrative being promoted that police are shooting black men. When I suggested to that lady that if they ( suspects and citizens alike ) obeyed the commands of the police that they wouldn't get shot, that is when she informed me they did not have to do that. Her position being, we have freedom in America and can just do as we please. If a policeman tells me to stop, I don't have to do that. I can't be detained until it has been proven in a court of law that I did something to be stopped for. I'm innocent until proven guilty! Just because a policemen sees you with a gun, and you point that gun at him or her, you can not shoot! You have to wait and see if they will shoot, first! Even then, that doesn't mean you can shoot them, you should use non-lethal means. Well because the police don't have an authority to stop you in the first place! There's no law that says I have to obey the police.  And then I hear from the same person; the police need to be retrained! It's the Police that don't know the law. It's against the law to be racist! ( social justice ) civil law doesn't say I have to obey the police, this is America, I'm innocent. To me it's incomprehensible that anyone could believe anything so silly.  

just irritated

 This morning as I checked my Facebook page I was once again sucked in. Yes, it happens all the time with those long posts. I'm sure you know the ones that sometimes begins with, this is a test or no one reads my posts. These long posts usually conclude with cancer sucks or some other malady in life sucks. Then you are encouraged, implored or shamed into the "copy and paste" thing, don't share share or like. I do not copy and paste to satisfy someone else's insistence that I do so. I will not be coerced, shamed or otherwise bullied into performing that action. No, I just get annoyed that I spent my time reading through an entire paragraph because I feel like someone must have something important to say, at least they feel it is important. Informing me that cancer sucks and/or peoples' lives matter, doesn't qualify in my opinion. I'm well aware of that! So I'm left with the question, why? Why are people doing this? What is the motivation behind making statements like, no one reads long postings, or, I know who will read my postings and who will skip over them. This is a test? A test of what? If I don't read your long posting, that you copied and pasted from someone else, that means I don't care about you, or in fact, I just don't care about the rest of the world! I'm just a self centered person that skips over stuff I don't want to read.
 Yes I know, it is to raise awareness. That's what everyone says about that stuff. If you know someone, or you yourself have been effected by cancer or whatever, copy and paste. Well, I know several people suffering from cancer, I lost my sister to cancer, and I myself have had cancer. I've also had a heart attack. Still I feel no need to inform anyone else about any of that. All I can do personally is offer support and pray for those that suffer from whatever it is they are suffering from. Copying and pasting a message on Facebook isn't going to do a thing! I'm quite certain anyone old enough to be on Facebook is aware that cancer sucks and so does any number of negative things! No different than this whole mantra about " racism" is wrong. Ah, yeah I think everyone already knows that.
 Well whatever. I suppose if that somehow makes you feel better about yourself, or in some fashion brings you comfort about having done your part, there is no real harm in it. It annoys me but perhaps others really enjoy that. The thing is, to me, it is like the boy who cried wolf. Given time I will just begin skipping over such posts. I do like to read what others are saying or talking about. Isn't that one of the reasons for social media? We, humans, are a curious bunch, inquiring minds what to know. I am willing to read your postings when you have something you wish to share, whether there are pictures or not. The length of the post only effects my decision to read it after I begin reading it. Not unlike a book or magazine article, if it remains interesting I will continue to read. Then, like this morning, I was fooled once again, thinking this person had something to share only to reach the end where it was declared I should copy and paste! If I didn't, well the Facebook Gods will condemn me to hell I suppose. Well, all I can say is , it is a familiar place.
 There, I feel better for having written, basically the only means I have of speaking out loud on this social media/internet world, my feelings about the whole copy and paste this thing. It is my feeling if what I'm writing is worth repeating someone will copy and paste that without my having to implore them to do so. It's what I do anyway. I'm capable, I know how to do it, learned to copy and paste a while back, but only do so when I want to, seldom when I'm told to, and never when I'm threatened to do so. It's an annoyance.  

Convention

 I didn't watch a single minute of the DNC. So far I haven't watched a single minute of the RNC. I expect that will remain unchanged. Oh, I see snippets of both on Facebook, read some comments about who is saying what, that sort of thing. But the truth of the matter is, I'm not watching. For me, no matter which convention it is, it is just a show. There are no new decisions being made, no real surprises, just an excuse to hold a big party, a rally if you will. And it isn't all that entertaining in my opinion. I think the majority of people watching those conventions have already decided on their votes. They are watching more to validate their choice than to decide. At least that's what I think. It's human nature. I want to hear others telling us how right I am, that I have made the correct decision. In 2020 I'm thinking that national conventions are really a relic of the past, no longer a necessity. No, today those national conventions are more of a " rally " than anything else.
 I think in the past, before the internet, those conventions did perform a different function. Mass communication existed certainly, but the internet created a superhighway of information. The result being far more people have made up their minds, have decided who they are backing before the conventions first speaker takes the stage. I can recall my parents watching portions of the conventions on television when I was young. I do remember some of that fiasco called the DNC in 1968. Yes, that's the famous, or should I say infamous one, so many people have heard about. Eventually it was called a Police riot by the news media of the day. Not really that much different than what we are hearing today. Much of that began when a man named Dean Johnson, an American Indian, was shot and killed by the Chicago Police. He and another boy were in violation of a curfew order. When confronted by the police Dean Johnson pulled a gun and attempted to fire at the police. The gun misfired but the cops guns did not. He was killed. The situation between protestors and the police only went downhill from there. Was it the fault of the police attempting to maintain law and order, or was it police brutality? As today, depends on who is telling the story.
 What other significant events can you relate to a political convention? If you are like me, probably not much. A few fiery speeches, perhaps a scuffle and some name calling, but nothing of any real concern. You would have to go back before my time to read about anything exciting happening. Back in the "old" days the party bosses would determine the nominee at these conventions. In more modern times the nominee is well known in advance having been determined by the primaries. So in reality these conventions aren't really a necessity in that regard. But the big deal today is supposed to be the establishment of the party platform. It is during the convention that platform is supposed to be solidified. That's why Biden turned to Sanders asking for support, mostly a lessening of the left leaning policies of him and his supporters. As far as I can tell that platform today consists mostly of, we hate Trump, more than any substantial policies. The presidential nominee admits he disagrees with his vice presidential pick as far as policy concerns. I'd say the platform isn't very stable. But I'd say the vast majority of potential voters already knew all of that.
 Now with this "virus" forcing more or less virtual conventions one has to ask, what's the point? Well a great deal of it has to do with fundraising. Yes, money rears its' ugly head once again in the political maelstrom that is an election in the United States today. It takes a lot of money to campaign these days. It's an unfortunate truth in politics but that has always been so. The candidates with the most money have an advantage regardless of policy. Oh it doesn't always get the candidate elected, but it sure makes it a distinct possibility. How did people like AOC get elected? Through contributions to her campaign fund. The big donors are expecting a return on that investment, don't be fooled by any of the hype. The evidence for that is apparent to anyone that just steps back and takes a good look at the last three plus years! Yes, many rich and powerful people aren't happy that their last investment turned out to be a bust! That's what a great deal of this is all about. A lot of money was lost and what's worse it is looking like the loses will continue! I'm reminded of a line in the movie Dirty Dancing when the club owner is talking to his band leader, "Lots' of changes, it feels like its' all just slipping away" That's the way those power brokers in the DNC are feeling about now. Trump showed up to the dance and things are changing.
 I'm thinking we may have seen the end to the big conventions. Funding is of paramount importance and perhaps the money spent on that will be redirected. Virtual conventions are certainly cheaper. Heck more people get their information on policy and platform from Twitter and Facebook than any convention. I seriously doubt anyone is waiting until the national convention to decide who they are voting for. I don't think it makes a bit of difference which party affiliation we are talking about either. The conventions today are not much more than "love fests" for the candidate. The only surprises today may be which other "former candidates" change their opinion of the nominee. Last week they were busy deriding each other, insisting their plan was the way to go. At the convention they are now in love with that person giving them their full endorsement! Ah, politics does make for  strange bedfellows.   

no regrets

 I knew a man towards the end of his life that seemed rather gruff and annoyed most of the time. A big man in stature, confident and bold in his speech. From all accounts he had lived a full life. Yes, he had his ups and downs just like everyone else, his missteps and bad decisions. He also had had his triumphs. I'd say he was just the regular Joe, the every man. The day came when he realized the inevitability of death, his own death, and so made plans for that. He requested a few simple words be engraved on his headstone, " I have no regrets " And that is what is there to this day. It was a curious request and one I questioned. Not that I ever asked him the reason for that choice, just figuring it was a statement he felt should be immortalized. His last words? Were they words of defiance or something far more profound. I'm thinking perhaps the later is the case.
 " When you live with uncertainty you fear death, and so focus on staying alive." Having regrets would certainly lead you to uncertainty. Having regrets means you are holding onto the past. Yes we should acknowledge the shortcomings of our past, learn from them and move on. When we do that we relegate those regrets to the past as well. Having done that we can then move forward with confidence. Some may see that differently, see that as being stubborn or egotistical, but it is confidence. When you are certain, you have little fear. Yes you are aware of dangers, but the dangers don't dictate your response. You don't hedge your bets, you aren't afraid, and you live. Isn't that the the thrill thrill of it all? Isn't that what drove you in youth? Yes, and that caused some bad choices, sometimes painful ones. But we learned from that and moved forward.
 I have discovered, as I get older the less I'm concerned with " saying or doing the right thing." The truth is I have never been overly concerned with that. Even as a young child I was always a little defiant, taking a different path or whatever you wish to call that. Mistakes, made a lot of them. Never stopped me from trying again though, never made me seek shelter. I've stood and fought, I've simply walked away. As far as saying or doing the right thing, that thing is what you believe it to be. It isn't what others tell you it should be! It really is as I have said in the past; the truth is what you believe it to be. That's your truth!
 So now as I visit my friend in his final rest I read those words with a different thought. I'm thinking he was simply saying. I did it my way. Yes, just like that old Frank Sinatra song. One of the lines from that song even says, " regrets, I've had a few, but then again too few to mention" and so seems obvious to me now. Strange how in life, that is to say while we are living, we will often meet with derision, contempt, and even name calling. That happens when we don't say or do the " right" thing according to others concepts of that. When we fail to bow to social pressure and adopt whatever cause , whatever ideology is being promoted at that time. But that is the price for not playing it safe.
 So my question is simply this; why is that very attribute lauded after our death?  It is then a most honorable thing to say about someone. They were an individual, unafraid to take a stand. That person spoke their mind, their truths, without fear. Isn't that the emotion that is evoked by that old song? Confidence and strength of belief. Admirable traits, virtues even. Not necessarily having all the right answers but answering the challenge of life unafraid of death. Death is a certainty, so why fear that? You will when you are uncertain, when you haven't decided. That's when you start doing things, their way! Truth is you need to live your life your way, and in that you will find peace and happiness. Which way will you ultimately choose? As for me I'll stay the course. I'll keep on doing things my way. I have to say, it seems to be working out so far, like my friend, I have no regrets.   

up to the challenge

 Yesterday I saw a yard sale. I'm thinking it may be the first since this pandemic. I'm not aware of any laws, rules or regulation about any of that but I'm assuming they were banned. Whatever the case, I saw one yesterday. I have certainly stopped and checked out yard sales over the years. It isn't something I do often or as a hobby like some do. Truth is, I hadn't really given that a thought until seeing that one yesterday. The summer of 2020 has been lacking in yard sales. That lead me to think how many other fund raising activities suffered the same fate. Bazars, church sales, car washes and bake sales came to mind. I wondered too, after this is over, will the mask wearers ever feel safe buying baked goods again? After all, if those cupcakes and brownies weren't baked and handled at a distance of at least six feet, they are literally dripping with droplets! And birthday cakes? The only acceptable thing in that regard would have to be electric candles that can be "blown" out by blowing the fuse!
 In just 29 days fall officially arrives. How will this pandemic affect that? I suppose the biggest change we will all be aware of is the voting process. If this weren't an election year I doubt many would even notice. We call all still rake the leaves, drink pumpkin spice everything, put out the mums and all that. Halloween will be different I'm sure of that. Although I can't see why it should be, hey if you're going to wear a mask? Well the liberals will think of some reason you shouldn't do that. Well masks work when everyone wears them, except, when everyone is wearing them you have to stay six feet apart because the masks work. The whole school thing is a mess. Some of the kids expecting this distance learning, others going to classes, and still others doing the hybrid thing.
 Of course the election looms large. I anticipate that being a real fiasco no matter who is declared the winner. The smooth transition of power has certainly become a thing of the past. Or, more properly I should say, a precedent has been set by the Democratic party. There was nothing smooth about anything they have done and indeed, continue to do. The entire house of representatives is up for reelection as well as the Presidential seat. I'm hoping that people realize that and focus their attention on that. If you want real change in government you have to change the house! I do believe it is far past time for a good number of those politicians to get out of the house! And I'm talking about both parties here. Too much is owed to too many in my opinion.
 I can only hope that all of this wakes some people up. We the people are the government! It's time we sent that message to Congress loud and clear. Yes, there are those protesting, making a lot of noise, issuing threats, causing property damages and in general acting like a bunch of fools. Those folks will go away once the "show" is over. It's time to put an end to the show! We the people can do that with our vote. We can elect those that stand for law and order, elect those with the fortitude to actually impose the will of the people on those that would oppose that. It's a question I have asked before, if a person does the right thing, does the motivation to do so matter? What I mean is, if a politician does what the voters demand of them, does it matter the reason they do so? If we elect new people, people anxious to do the right thing, whatever their motivation to do so may be, is that wrong? It's my belief we have far too many in government today whose sole purpose is to remain in that office regardless.
 There is an old advertising slogan that has stuck in my mind for years now. In fact, since 1971. " It takes a tough man to raise a tender chicken." Yeah only us old folks would remember that I suppose. The thing is it is as relevant today as the day when Frank Purdue first uttered the phrase. Frank Purdue was known for being a tough guy to work for. That is to say, he insisted on things being done the right way, every time, without exceptions. I'm quite certain his name could be found on the bathroom wall with some disparaging remarks and accusations about his personal life! The moral there is, results are what are important, not popularity. It takes a tough man to raise a tender chicken. It takes a tough parent to raise children correctly as well. And yes, it takes a tough man to win a war! Patton was a tough guy and possibly the most successful field commander in modern times. Consider carefully your choice to lead the battle. Whatever battle it is you wish to win. You know Commanders seldom make good politicians. General George Washington was an exception but only because the entire nation was behind him, trusted him, and indeed admired him. Didn't really have another until Eisenhower, and even then there was some dissention. What have we had since? Kennedy? He was tough and got killed because of that. His brother too, the mafia wasn't too happy about him. And today we are faced with a choice once again. There is Joe Biden, 47 years of political service to the nation. List his accomplishments. There is Donald J Trump, a four year politician. President of the United States of America. List his accomplishments. Do the list, honestly, fairly, and without bias. That is what you should be basing your decision on, not whether he is a good guy or not. Takes a tough man to run a nation. You may or may not like that man, that should be irrelevant.
 Those are the choices whether you are happy with the choices or not. You can say I wish and I hope all day long but the bottom line is, those are your choices. Yes you can choose not to vote, you can choose another name on the ballot or write in your own name. Those are choices as well. But the fact remains, one of those two will win the election and lead the nation for the next four years. Choose not for the moment but choose for the future. Retain the Republic or surrender that to a simple democracy, surrender to the mob. Violence is the last resort of the desperate. Who is inciting the violence today, who is funding that? Answer that question honestly. I'm as anxious as everyone else to just wind this year up. But then I realize, we'll have to do it all again next year. Are you up to the challenge? I am. 

not in my world

 Time and fashion, they are always changing. It shouldn't be a surprise but sometimes it is. I was surprised at my age on my last birthday, how did I get this old, this soon? But that is just a mental thing I suppose, everyone experiences that. As to fashion I am not one to pay much attention to it. I am surprised by that all the time. The fashion we choose does say something about us though, that can't be denied. But I do think we all reach a fashion point that we shouldn't go beyond. Some folks aren't aware of that or just plain don't care. You know what I mean I'm sure. I'd say my fashion sense hasn't changed a great deal since the 1970's. The biggest change is in the hat I wear. I've worn several styles and today it is the newsboy cap. I do believe a man should have a good hat. Thing is a good hat, that fits just right, is a difficult thing. I think Merle Haggard, in his later years, perfected that. I'm also certain he had his custom made and fitted just right. You could say his hats become a costume.

 Yesterday I paid attention to this advertisement on the television for the first time. What I mean is I've heard it plenty of times before but never really listened or paid attention. It was an advertisement for the Men's Warehouse. Now that sounds masculine enough, a warehouse. Concurs up images of longshoremen. What are they selling, clothes. The very latest in fashion for men. The advertisement shows men getting fitted for suits and such. What caught my attention at the very end of the commercial this man gets on a bicycle, in a three piece suit, his little bicycle helmet on, with a backpack and pedals off to work. Yeah that's a real masculine image. I couldn't help but snicker. Yes I look at that with derision, I admit to that. So you have this company calling themselves the Mens' Warehouse and that is the end result? No thanks. I guess that may be attractive in Manhattan or someplace but no place I live or work. I can't help but think it is further proof of the effeminizing of men. Yes, I realize business men have worn suits for many years as a sign of their social position, the white collar worker. But, they still portrayed a masculine sense about them with their fedora hats and tough guy images. Tough in business anyway! Ever notice how the politicians remove their sport coats and roll up their sleeves? That's a subliminal message to the public, I'm working! Thing is, for me at least, it just comes off as disingenuous, like they are playing a part.
 I suppose I'm just a relic of the past. I can tell you this much, you will never, ever see me riding a bicycle with some silly looking helmet. You will also never ever see me wearing a backpack! Well alright if I was climbing Mount Everest or something similar I might. Never in a three piece suit on a bicycle. Fashion you say? And what is that fashion statement? I'm not certain, all I know is isn't anything you'll hear me saying. Sure I've heard it said you need to get in touch with your feminine side, well, that doesn't mean embrace it! Just be aware of it and try not to let that show is my policy. I was raised in a world where men where men, and the sometimes the ladies were too! I never felt threatened by a strong woman, maybe that's why I've never tried to be one.
 You know back in the day those businessmen would often have hobbies to show their masculinity. They went on big game hunts, played polo, chased their secretaries, smoked big cigars and that sort of thing. Yes, they were tough guys in their own right and that was the image they projected. Today they are doing what? Having a double foam latte at the vegan kiosk in their bicycle shorts! And there trusted stead is a Schwinn! I'd say the image has changed significantly. They are now going to "spin" classes and doing yoga with their gender fluid friends. They are confused about what bathroom to use! You might see them wearing little ribbons and a ponytail. Well, aren't we metropolitan.
 I know all of this is just me rambling on. It doesn't mean a thing one way or the other. I just noticed that commercial and had to laugh about it. The Mens' Warehouse! Well were I come from if a "man" was seen riding a bicycle, with a helmet, in a three piece suit with a backpack; let's just say I wouldn't feel too intimidated. I would figure he has embraced his feminine side a little too long! An image to portray the Mens' Warehouse? Not in my world it isn't.
Yes, this is the way I see it and I'm not afraid to say it. Take it anyway you like. I would be less than honest if I tried to say otherwise. You are reading the genuine Ben. 

I said so

 I saw an article about a 7 year old boy having his MAGA hat taken and he was roughed up a bit. Not at all surprising seeing as he was outside of a place where there was the DNC convention. I didn't really read the whole article and so I am lacking in those details. But the thing was I was reading the comments below the article deriding those that attacked the boy. Well I certainly agree with that, regardless of party affiliation actions like that are despicable. There is never a reason to physically attack anyone in that fashion. But this is turning out to be a particularly vicious election cycle. Truth is, a particularly vicious time in America! To say emotions are heightened is an understatement. It has the earmarks of desperation. I'll just leave that remark there and you can assign ownership to whomever you choose.

 The thing that troubles me, and the thing I commented on was the parents. It is my thinking that that boys parents were being irresponsible allowing him to wear that hat, in that situation. Given the current political climate and knowing what others are doing, I can't see that any other way. For me, that falls under the general category,  parenting. Parents have a responsibility to watch out for their children. It seems obvious enough to me. Yes, yes, that child has every right to wear that hat, he has every right to demonstrate, but he should also be parented! That is to say, told what a foolish thing it would be to expose yourself to that crowd. How many times did you hear, "I suppose if all the other kids were doing that, you would too?" This is one of those situations. The parents shouldn't have allowed that. Yes, I know the modern parent doesn't say no, but they should. The responsibility is to be a parent first, a friend second. In this case, in my opinion, they were being neither. 

 I think this incident speaks to a bigger problem today. There are far too many parents exposing their children to adult things far too soon. We've all read about what the curriculum in our schools contains. In my opinion there is no reason to start teaching sex education in first grade! Setting that aside I feel there is a wide variety of subjects that are addressed far too early. In short we are not allowing our children to be children and do childish things. The end result is a bunch of "adults" that act like children. Don't think so? What is the big complaint you hear today? I mean the one most frequently vocalized? It isn't fair! That's what I hear all the time, it isn't fair. Anytime someone else has something they want, it isn't fair. We have progressed to physical attributes not being fair! Yeah, hear that all the time. And now we use what is being perceived as a liability to gain an advantage well, because, it isn't fair. 

 Another thing I'm seeing a lot of is this notion of respect. You disrespected me, you're not giving me the respect I should have. I deserve respect. What these adults have not learned is that respect is earned ,not given away. It's sorta like those possessions you want, or that promotion you want, you have to earn them. The problem being too many received trophies for just participating! You have to do more than show up! And when they don't get that what is the problem? It isn't fair. Whenever anything doesn't go the way they want it to go, it isn't fair. 

 I guess I wandered off just a bit, but I am trying to understand why any parent would allow their child to be in the position that boy was. As parents we should trying to protect our children from harm, not attempting to use them as a shield. Why interject a child in to that situation. We should be teaching our children to respect others. By teaching that child it is okay to wear that hat, or any other logo or symbol for that matter, to a gathering where you know it will be met with derision and possible violence is irresponsible. A responsible parent would have explained all that to the child, and yes. 7 is still just a child, and not allowed that. It falls under the category of common sense. Discretion is the better part of valor. 

 You know in only what can be considered an irony of life, parents often use the phrase, "because I told you so." They employ that when it would just take too long to explain. Like this hat incident. But I want to wear my MAGA hat because it's cool, all my friends are wearing theirs, and I have a right to wear it! You're not!  But why, it's not fair! Because I told you so, that's why. End of discussion. Lesson learned? Sometimes things aren't fair. And sometimes, that's a good thing.    

stuff and substance

 Maturity is enjoying what you have, not hoping for what you'll get. And by that I don't mean what others may give you, but rather the desire to get more stuff. Maybe I'm growing up after all as I find myself doing just that. In fact I find myself getting rid of stuff these days, the stuff interfering with my enjoyment. I'm thinking it is a process, the division of stuff and substance. The things we are willing to get rid of is the stuff, the things we keep the substance. 

 Now material things are not the substance of life, I'm not going to say that. The material things are here to make our lives easier, or to serve as reminders of the past. If they aren't doing either of those things, it's just stuff. Now my stuff can become your substance. Those are the things we treasure for one reason or another. Their " substances " lies in an emotional attachment, a memory. For instance I have a mantle clock that belonged to my great grandmother. That clock was some of her stuff and now it contains substance, to me. I can't say with certainty how she felt about that clock as she passed when I was about five years old. But I know that clock sat in her home, for years afterward, unnoticed, uncared for and ignored. To my great grandfather is was just stuff. He had a lot of stuff! When the time came he didn't mind parting with that stuff. And I think I'm starting to understand that. It's a process, getting rid of stuff. It has to be done a little at a time, the " removing a band aid " just won't work in this situation, the shock being too great. No, it has to accomplished by transference. 

 I think in these modern times, at least in my time, we have all gotten used to having stuff. We heard all about making do, and taking care of things, but we always got new stuff. Even when that stuff was hand me downs, they were new stuff to us. 

 We all like to tell the stories of how we went without and how difficult times were in the past. I know I've told my children and grandchildren about that. I didn't have air conditioning in my house! I didn't have a telephone of my own. I had to walk to school uphill three miles both directions and do my chores when I got home. Yesterday I heard my granddaughter complaining about having roll up windows in her car. Yes, she has car without power windows! She has to roll the window down, manually, when in the drive up lane. And, omg, if someone wants to talk to her from the passenger side of the car, she can't roll that window down, they have to open the door. Very inconvenient, why it's like driving a stagecoach or something. I'm certain that is something she will one day be telling her children. When I was her age air conditioning and an eight track player in the car would have been extraordinary. 

 I don't know it just seems like we spend a great deal of time and effort getting stuff. We go to work and say to ourselves, one day I'll get this or that. When we are younger we want stuff, the popular stuff mostly. Clothes, cars, games, whatever the newest thing is. We want all the cool stuff. Then we enter a phase of getting what we think of as the necessary stuff, a home, a mate, and still all the popular stuff. After a while we begin to care a lot less about stuff, especially the popular stuff. We think of that as being " grown up. "The popular music loses its' appeal as does the current fashion. Then there is a shifting of values. What the younger people are embracing as " acceptable " begins to go against the grain a bit. It starts with small things really but over time those things become upsetting. That's when the things begin to grate on our own value system, what we sometimes call morals. It forces us to look a bit closer at what we ourselves value. 

 I'm thinking that is when we also begin to sort out the stuff from substance. We realize that we can leave stuff behind, but it is our substance that is important. It is the substance of the previous generation that forms the world today. When we see the next generation discarding our substance as stuff, that is upsetting. 

 In the past I'm thinking those changes took longer, over more generations. It is said the older you get the faster time becomes and I agree with that. The world is speeding up and things are changing a lot faster. It's the same with us, we hesitate to discard some stuff, never know when you might need that. Still there is a time when you realize that you don't need that anymore, most likely never will and it gets discarded. That's what happens with stuff. Ah, but our substance? That is a different thing altogether. Substance is what we hold onto, what gives us strength. It is what we call character. The stuff with meaning. Yes it may be just stuff to you but holds much value to me. Don't be so quick to discard it. 

 Today it appears the whole world is in a rush. Anxious to discard the lessons of the past and go boldly where no man has gone before! The truth of the matter is, man has gone there before. I believe there is little that can be said or thought about that hasn't happened before. Yes we tend to believe in our arrogance, our technological advances, that we have the answers. And yet, we have little control over the most basic of things. We can't control the environment, although we like to delude ourselves into thinking so, mother nature just laughs. A virus is loose and kills thousands and what is our response? We can develop a vaccine. And there is racism! Yes, we are aware that people don't always embrace each other because of differences. 

 I know all of this has been said before, by the older generation. Todays children will one day be saying the same thing, with just as much sincerity and angst as I'm saying it today. I do have a genuine concern for what kind of world my grandchildren will be living in. More so for great grands and beyond if that is to be. We need to embrace more substance and less stuff! Or as I like to say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!  

are selfies yourself?

 It's a funny thing really, the person I see in a photograph isn't the same person I see in the mirror. I wonder why that is? I noticed that yesterday after having a snapshot taken with my granddaughter. In my bathroom mirror I didn't think I looked that old, in the photograph, a grandfather. And not only a grandfather, an old looking man with somewhat of a pot belly. I definitely like the guy in the mirror better. Could it be I'm the only one that sees that guy in the mirror and the one in the picture is what everyone else sees? That certainly appears to be the case. Then, that being established, I'm beginning to have an appreciation for the kindness of others.
 There are those that enjoy having their picture taken. I wonder do they see someone different or are they just happy with what they see? I have noticed this younger generation seem to take a lot of selfies. A lot of selfies. At first I thought it was simply because of the convenience in doing so these days. That certainly wasn't the case when I was their age. We did have polaroid cameras' although that certainly wasn't cheap. I think you got eight pictures in a package for like five or six dollars. And you did need someone else to take the picture, then they wanted their picture taken too. Few pictures were ever taken to look at it for sixty seconds and get discarded. Well, deleted these days, same action , different word. But now on second thought I'm wondering if all the picture taking isn't about convenience, it's because that is what they see. What I mean is, those selfies are their mirrors.  That is the person they see. Of course then who do they see in a mirror? As I said, from my experience those people never look the same.
 I am often annoyed at the commercial on television. That is especially true with the ones concerning senior citizens. If you are between the age of fifty and eighty we will sell you "final expenses" insurance so your death isn't a burden to others! Yeah I sure hope that isn't inconvenient for them. But I get the message. More annoying is the use of really old looking people as grandparents. Have you ever noticed that? The " grandparent " is grey headed, hunched over and feeble, needing a flip phone with larger buttons and technology to make it easier to use. The grandchildren are just cute little children, all innocent wanting grandma to run and play with them. My question is, how old where they when they had kids? Did they wait until they were fifty to have children of their own? Those " grandparents " look more like great grandparents to me. Hey I'm a grandfather and I don't look nearly that old and I'm not incapable of using a phone and I certainly don't need life alert!
 Well, whatever. It is just something I was thinking about. When we look in the mirror, we are seeing what? In my experience that changes every day and according to my mood. There are times when I see a younger man and times when grandpa shows up. But I'm thinking that may be simply because I don't spend a lot of time in front of the mirror. More time in front of the mirror than in front of a camera though, maybe that explains the selfie thing. These young folks spend more time taking selfies than I've ever spent in front of a mirror. As a result the image for me changes quite slowly in the mirror but rapidly in the photograph. That's why seeing a picture of myself is usually somewhat of a shock. If I were looking at pictures of myself all day, I wouldn't be as surprised. Do you know what I mean? Thing is there are times when the mirror lies. white lies, but the camera never does. A picture whether a photograph or a digital image captures a moment in time, forever. You can't change that. That's what you look like at that instant! The mirror however doesn't capture anything, it merely reflects. Yesterday it reflected the past, I'm looking good all things considered. Later in the day I saw that picture of myself standing next to my granddaughter. Crap, the old guy showed up for that picture. Isn't that always the way. Where was the guy in the mirror? 

purpose

 Are we here for a purpose, or are we just here? Well that's a question man has been asking himself since the dawn of time. I've always felt that we are here to accomplish something. I think it would have to be that way if you believe in God. God wouldn't create anything that didn't have a purpose. I've always felt like it was my job to do whatever that purpose is, whether I know what it is or not. I've never been certain that I could even have that knowledge. Seems a bit arrogant to know the mind of God. Of course I have heard of those that say God has spoken directly to them and they listened. That is not within my experience. I just go forth on faith. That is what I taught in the church I attended. You didn't demand proof, you didn't hear voices, or speak in tongues, none of that stuff. No, I was taught that faith was the key and obedience opened the gate. Your experience may be different. I can not say one teaching is better than another. Not when it comes to God and belief in that God.
 But what if we are here without an assigned purpose? It is possible that we born completely by accident, that God doesn't intervene in that process. He just designed the mechanism that makes it all possible and leaves it to nature after that. That is the position of the deist. Thomas Aquinas was possibly the first to propose such. The beliefs of Deism are as varied as the Deist themselves. I can understand their position and even agree with some of what they propose. But, I can't dismiss the idea that God can and will intervene in the affairs of men when required. Of course that requires the belief that God has an ultimate plan for man. That goes back to the original thought, to what purpose? Yes, we tend to think of that on a personal level, what is my purpose, but what is the purpose of man as a whole? What is the function of humanity?
 If man has no ultimate purpose, no ultimate accomplishment to achieve, there would be no reason for intervention simply because it wouldn't matter. So, setting aside any personal purpose or expectation, why would God create man? Would it be solely to worship him? That would surely make God the ultimate narcissist. It could be argued however that isn't so because God is deserving of all the praise and respect we can give. Can something that is right, be wrong? We all know the commandment, thou shall have no other gods before me. What is that saying? Is it implying there are other gods? No, I don't think that is what it means at all. I believe it means that you should obey what is right ( God ) before anything else. Wasn't that the purpose of the ten commandments? They are the laws of right and wrong. If we follow them, eternal happiness will be the result. All that is left for us to decide is, how long is eternity? That is to say, does eternity end, for us, when we die? The deists are concerned with that question and they all have different opinions on that.
 As for me I believe that is shaped by what we want, not necessarily by what is. What do you want to believe? It has been my observation when our beliefs interfere with our wants, it is usually the belief that gets changed. The only way to control that is by controlling your wants. Sometimes called altruism, the concern is for what is right, not what you want. But everything we want is not necessarily wrong. How are we to differentiate between the two? The difference lies not in the want, but in the means it is obtained or satisfied. That alone is the guiding principle. That's why we say it has to be done in the right way.
 So then that leaves this. We believe what we want to believe. Does that change what is? The big question is, do we know what is? Not just our purpose, but the purpose of man? The Bible tells us it is to glorify God. to spread his word, and in return we get to go to heaven. If we fail to do that we go to hell. Seems rather cut and dried to me. The older I get the more I tend to believe that there is a heaven. As to the concept of hell I'm not so sure, I find it hard to believe that a loving God, a benevolent God would condemn you for an eternity. My thinking being, God wouldn't make something for no reason, no purpose, just because he is God. As to whether what I do will make a difference in the big scheme of things I am not prepared to say. Seems a bit arrogant to believe I would but then again the smallest cog can stop the largest machine. I do tend to believe the designer of all this planned for that as well, there is a backup.
 Now none of this is meant as any great thought, no philosophy of life, and I offer no answers. These are just the things I find myself thinking about. I find it happens more often these days than it used to. I am responding to the universe! I find it is beneficial to think about these things, talk about them and share those thoughts with others. If we say the same things long enough we will believe them whether they are the truth or not. For that reason we should speak our doubts. It is my feeling it is just as important to speak your doubts as it is to speak your truths. My biggest hope is one day I will have the answer. Thing is only one being has that answer. First I have to believe that I will get to ask that being the question. Did I have a purpose?  

the post office

 With mail in voting being all the talk I thought to take a look at the postal service as it exists today. I'm opposed to mail in voting based upon their job performance. Unless my vote was sent registered mail, return receipt requested, with a verified signature at that point of receipt, I will not do that. Even then, I would require some guarantee of it being delivered on time. The current postal system can not meet those requirements. They have neither the resources nor the personnel to do that. But set that aside for the moment and let's take a look.
 In 1971 the postal workers went on an eight day strike for increased wages and the right to collective bargaining. Prior to that the postal service was an arm of the United States government and its' workers were subject to those rules and regulations. Nixon was the president at that time. He sent members of the armed forces to deliver the mail in an attempt to show the postal workers they could be replaced. That was a miserable failure. So in the end the postal workers, with their union, won a raise and the collective bargaining rights they so wanted. As a result the postal service became an independent agency. They would have to make a profit in order to stay in business, sorta. The Congress does allocate about 96 million dollars a year to the postal service to pay for " free postage " for the legally blind and the cost of postage for U.S. citizens mailing in ballots from overseas. The postal service also has certain rights to borrow money from the government, at reduced rates, at any time they deem it necessary. In short, as far as a business goes, it is pretty poorly organized. It can't be allowed to go bankrupt like any other business would. In fact the postal service hasn't realized a profit in eleven straight years! They are deeply in debt. That is the direct result of the Unions. Yes, that's what happens when unions control things. The prices go up, up, up, and the business eventually goes down. Happened with the auto manufacturers, and we bailed them out. The postal service itself cites two primary reasons for their staggering losses. The cost of funding the pension plan and the cost of the health care program. The declining volume of mail is also cited as a reason.
 Now taking all that into consideration do we really have an expectation that this independent agency can handle an increase in volume? That is to say, at this time they are ready? Well I don't know about you but I don't want to rely on a business running in the red for eleven straight years to provide a service this vital. Sure they can handle a Christmas card, what's the worst that can happen, it gets there late or gets lost. But my vote isn't a gift, it isn't a salutation, it is my voice in government. I want to ensure it is heard! It has nothing to do with the employees, it has to do with the management of that business. Yes, pensions, health care, vacations, and higher wages are important. But when those costs are bankrupting you, something has to be done. Unless the workers are willing to reduce those costs the options are few. The first option, reduce the number of employees, close post offices in the smallest places, remove mail boxes from the streets. In fact the Obama administration removed over 14,000 over a five year period. It's obvious that didn't help much, how many would have to be removed? And let's not forget that Senator Diane Feinstein (D ) from California, husband has the exclusive deal to sell some 50 former postal buildings at a commission of 6%. Some of those building are worth a few million due to location and size.
 No I vote no confidence in their ability to do the job. An independent agency, on the verge of bankruptcy, being trusted with my vote. I don't think so. Who is going to pay the bill? You are, the United States taxpayer, to an independent agency. You know we say, it's in the mail for a reason. Everyone knows the implication. Yet, there are those willing and eager to allow their vote to be just be, " in the mail. "   Obvious to me they don't really care if their vote is counted or not! No, all they want to say is, I voted! Well you can say that anyway so why bother? Just self-identify as a voter. It's just as real, right? 

a long time ago

 As part of my morning routine I checked my " memories " page on Facebook. It's always interesting to see what I was thinking about a year ago. I do see common threads and that's a good thing. At least I'm not erratic. Of course some would say I'm inflexible, unchanging and stubborn. That's another way of looking at it. No matter, I'll just continue on.
 This morning as I looked at that page a poem I had written was there. It was posted four years ago. I read it over again and the same thoughts I had when composing that piece came back. I'm going to say that's a good thing. Then I thought maybe I should post it again, here, and offer an explanation of just what I was thinking about. So, not having much else to say this morning I'll give that a shot.

Ink

Faded Tattoo's
Once new and bright
Time and age
Take their toll
They begin to fade from sight

When new they made a statement
Confident and Bold
Now the conversations changes
The stories go untold
Wrinkled skin
Thinning hair
Ink colors the soul

Memories fading
Shuffling feet
Confident and bold
Old men
Faded tattoos
The things that have been
Remaining still
Just
Distant and Dim.

I think my poems are pretty much straightforward and obvious in their meaning. There aren't any hidden meanings, no deep thoughts or secrets in them. I do enjoy the rhyme when it works out. Yes, they are amateurish and for good reason, I'm an amateur. Still they are my thought expressed as best I can and I hope others enjoy them. When I wrote this piece I was thinking about my youth. And by youth I mean before I was forty. I got my own tattoos when I was in the Navy, no surprise there. I got my first one to show others I was a man that could make his own decisions. Yes, a man among men boldly getting a tattoo! This was in a time when tattoos weren't quite as mainstream as they are today. Back then it was mostly sailors and bikers getting tattoos. We didn't yet call that being inked, that phrase would come later on. I would get just two more tattoos, though you could hardly classify them as such, as they are just my wifes' name. But that first one, the one I got in some shady tattoo parlor in Rotterdam Holland, I got to make a statement. Yes it was fueled by alcohol and testosterone. In review I have to laugh as I selected a flower, for reasons I can't explain. It has a banner where you would put a loved ones name, I had the word love written there. Well, I guess the alcohol was speaking louder than the testosterone. My statement? And isn't that what getting a tattoo is all about, was simply, I can do that. It meant nothing more than that. My selection was a display of machismo! I'm man enough to get a flower tattooed on my arm and I dare you say to anything about that. No one ever did. A hollow victory celebrated on my arm for eternity. A story that goes untold. It's the story of being young, being bold, and being, well human.
 Now I don't regret ever having gotten that tattoo. It hasn't effected my life in anyway whatsoever. No stigma has haunted me. Well a flower with the word love in it isn't very edgy. I'm glad I didn't get the popular selectins at that time. I saw many daggers with dripping blood proclaiming for God and Country. Snakes, cobwebs and chains around the wrist were all the rage. Statements being made? It was more like going with the crowd in my eyes. I wanted to be with the crowd but on a different path. I'm still that way to this day. That is what remains, just distant and dim.
 That is what I am trying to convey with that poem. I'm trying to explain time. The things we believe in our youth, the choices we make, stay with us forever. Yes they will become distant and dim but they remain. We no longer tell those stories, preferring to keep them hidden from the present. Those lessons are the INK that colors our soul.
 Tattoos are the things that people can see, a sort of advertisement. The thing is the product changes over time, or at least it should anyway, but the tattoos remain. Yes, that's what your mother was talking about when she was shocked to see that tattoo. What statement are you making? Probably nothing more than a whim at the moment, a sentiment or expression. Only you really understand that. It's like my flower. What does that say to me? It's just a reminder, nothing more. A reminder of youth and youthful emotions. A bold decision? Hardly. Today it is just what remains of a day gone by in a foreign land in a past life a long time ago.   

in the mail

And here we go again, it's all about convenience. I'm thinking about the push for mail in voting. We're not talking about absentee voting, we're talking about mail in voting. Many people seem to believe they are the same thing, they're not. Absentee ballots must be requested. The original intent was a way to allow you to cast your ballot when it was an impossibility for you to go to the polling place. I have done several absentee ballots while stationed on a U.S. Naval vessel , at sea. No other option in that scenario. It wasn't about convenience it was about necessity. I would add that I was well aware that my absente ballot would make no difference in the outcome of the election. That's simply a statistical fact. A fact I have to accept whether I like it or not. It's also a fact that doesn't excuse me from my obligation as a citizen to cast that ballot.
 Now this mail in ballot is a different animal altogether. These ballots are simply mailed to an address, same as publishing clearinghouse does, current resident or occupant. Who receives the ballot or indeed if they receive the ballot is not important. And that is just the first thing wrong with that process. Now legal ballots can easily reach the hands of those that would use them in an illegal fashion. These ballots, once filled in, are simply dropped back in the mail box. They may or may not reach their destination. If they are delivered who's to say they will be on time? You won't know that. You won't have any way of knowing that either.
 Awhile back, when I first heard of this plan I did a little research. The postal service has mechanisms in place, rules if you like, about mailing confidential materials. Your ballot, your vote, is just that, confidential. It requires special handling, additional postage, and a signature when received. That is the postal regulations. I haven't heard a single person talking about that. Are we to just ignore those regulations? Can we ignore regulations when that is more convenient? I've seen news articles about people being prosecuted over improper handling of confidential information, is your vote of any less value that other confidential materials? Yes I realize I'm old but back in  my day most people didn't advertise who they were voting for and it was impolite to ask. The reason for that was a simple one, it's none of your business, it's my business, personal and confidential! But now, with a mail in ballot all of that could be compromised. And for what reason? Convenience is the answer. I don't want to go to the polling place because. All the while I will go to Walmart, the liquor store, the casino's, out to eat, on vacation, or anywhere else when I want to, I'll wear my mask and practice social distancing, it'll be fine. But, the polling place now, I can't go there!
 It isn't about any danger, it's about convenience. This whole pandemic thing is just being used as a tool to expedite the normalization of mail in voting. Funny how for years it has been the joke, it's in the mail, and now, just like that, we are placing full trust and confidence in the mail system to deliver our ballots in a safe, secure and timely fashion! We are not requiring any accountability for that process either. No special handling, no marking of the packaging, no signature upon receipt. we'll just assume it all goes great!
 We all expect certain things from our government. The government is to provide us with, at a minimum, security from the wrongdoers, equal protection under the law. Besides paying our taxes and obeying those laws, what is expected of us, as citizens? To vote. It's a right afforded to those that qualify for that right. Yes, it is an option, there is no law that says you must vote. Your vote is your voice. You can choose to remain silent but silence is consent. That's why we say if you don't vote, you have no right to say a thing in that regard. That's what you chose to do. With this mail in ballot someone else can easily steal your voice and speak for you. Are you alright with that? Are you willing to just let anyone do the talking for you? You don't care one way or the other? You will surrender that for convenience? If you assent to mail in voting that is basically what you are doing. You are saying I don't care if my vote is counted or not. Yeah, my vote is in the mail. 

applying bias

  Now I'm not one to go checking peoples profile page although I have done so on rare occasions. I also don't necessarily believe everything I read there either. I filled out my profile with just a few basic things. Everything there is the truth and accurate. I have earned college credits over the years while in the military and afterward on job training. Having never bothered to tally them up or pursue that piece of paper I do not have a degree. As a consequence I jokingly stated I went to the University of Life. I've had quite a few derisive comments directed my way using that as a basis. I just laugh. I figure I have a Phd in life after 67 years. I'm also in no hurry to "graduate." I do have a fairly recent picture of myself as a profile picture.
 I don't know what others do, but I just respond to the comments others post. Unless I have known the person in the past, or had other contact with them previously, I am just reacting to a person. That person isn't white, black, green, blue, purple or any other color, just a person. I don't know their religion , their beliefs, or much of anything else about them. It's a safe and secure environment as well. Probably why some folks say the things they do, they are safe in their little world. Yes, that applies to me as well, there are times I will say something that if in person I may have hesitated to say. And that is the heart of the matter isn't it?
 The more we get to know about others, the more assumptions we make, the more we judge their reactions. We build a bias into that relationship. The bias I'm thinking about isn't necessarily prejudice, prejudice is simply prejudging,  For instance, if we are speaking to a person of color we won't use certain words or phrases unless we are that persons color. People of color don't use certain words or phrases when speaking to white people. That's the bias I'm thinking about. In electronics that bias is the constant and causes other parts of the circuit to respond accordingly. Ignoring the bias causes erratic behavior, mayhem and sometimes complete destruction. That happens with people all the time.
 The bias is our own life experience as compared to others. My life experience is a constant with me and an unknown to you. It's the old walk a mile in my shoes analogy. We may relate to common experiences, perhaps even share them, but the experience is a personal one regardless. What I mean is the way we process that. It is also the way we apply that in the future. Your comments, your reactions will be compared against the bias. That has become to be commonly referred to as, prejudice! All white people are prejudiced against people of color, all people of color are prejudiced against white people, the rich disdain the poor, the poor envy the rich, and so it goes on and on. The truth is, the bias is constant, what isn't constant is our reaction to that bias. We react according to the signals we receive. On social media, like Facebook, the signals are often weak. We don't have any preconceived notions or ideas about the other person. That's why there are times when the reaction is far greater than we expected. That reaction can be positive or negative.
 I was wondering what if we created a social platform where no one knows the others race, religion, ethnicity, education level, or anything else. What if we all had to react to others based solely on their perceptions of the world. How long do you think you could go without mentioning any of that? What if you didn't know my gender, my age, my race, any of that at all? How would you respond? Would it be in a polite and respectful manner? Or would it be the way most of us really are, human. Yes being human means you will react differently to every situation based on your past experiences. I have a tendency to be human, although some call it something else. I will give you my honest reaction to whatever you present to me. Yes I may temper that reaction a bit, but I won't change my bias. I will politely tell you why I disagree. We don't seek a reason when someone agrees with us, only when they don't. But what if we can't apply our bias? That's what I'm thinking about. I can not use my gender, my race, my education level, or my age as a qualifier for what I'm saying. How long could you hold a discussion with others without that? Probably the more important question is this: how far into a conversation can you get without forming an opinion about the other person in regard to any of those qualities? I'd say not far. The reason is obvious enough, you will be comparing their thoughts against your inherent bias. Is that being prejudicial?   

keeping up

 I went to Amazon, the website not the place in Africa, and purchase a radio, blue tooth, gps navigation system with back up camera for my car. This unit also had the capability to play videos, stream you tube, read sd cards and a few other things. It came the other day and I was excited to install this marvel of electronic engineering. After unpacking it from the box I tried a test fitting into the double din dash opening in my car. It really didn't fit very well. The face of the product was larger than the opening and so blocked some functions and controls on my dash. Yes the back portion would fit inside the opening but no way to mount it in there without extensive modifications. So, back to the amazon it goes. I have to say I'm impressed with their return policies. All I had to do was take it to the UPS store where they would wrap it up and ship it back at zero cost to me. Hard to beat that.
 I had put the radio back that I'm currently using. An am/fm unit with bluetooth connectivity. My phone hooks to that and I can answer and talk on the phone while driving, not that I do that, I still find that distracting but I could if I wanted to. Anyway, I was listening to the radio and I have it on an oldies station, because well, I'm old. The song Red Rubber Ball comes on and I'm instantly back in the sixties, riding in my mothers car. Funny how songs can do that sometimes. I began remembering riding in the back seat and there was a speaker right in the middle of the back seat. I could put my ear right up to that! Mom would yell to stop that before you go deaf! Ah, the sage advice of a mother.
 I was thinking about car radios and how I've seen the changes over the years. Yes, I remember when the radio was a fairly large box, at first just am, in the center of the dash and the speaker behind it face up in the dash board. One speaker. Then we got am/fm with a seek bar and you could preset the stations. Pretty fancy stuff, two speakers in stereo! Soon cars had four speakers, front and rear. At some point in the late sixties I purchased, at a cost of almost one hundred dollars, a Pioneer eight track stereo player with speakers. I installed that player under the dash, put in those new high tech speakers and man I was rockin'. Sound systems in cars have sure come a long way since those days. No longer do cars have, as an option a radio, today it is an entertainment and communication suite! I've seen some that look like a big screen tv in the dash. Amplified with premium grade equipment these systems can do it all.
 I'll be ordering another unit, hopefully one better suited to my application. I do like the bluetooth thing and a back up camera is surely going to be a plus. Safety first! The truth is a great number of those units come with all those features and the cost is quite reasonable. I figure I just might as well get the whole deal. I'm certain just the rudimentary features and performance will satisfy me. I don't need an amplifier, equalizer or premium speakers. The four speaker system that is in the car will be just fine. I have used the gps on my phone while driving, well the wife operates that, and found it very useful. Not that I need directions, men don't need that stuff, but it makes the wife feel more comfortable. I can't help but think about how far all that has come since I bought that eight track player for my ride back in the day. I'm still playing the same music, just with a new radio. I have never personally seen one but did you know you get a car, from the factory, with a record player in it? Now that would be cool! They were in certain Chrysler cars and where a complete failure. Still would be cool though. That's why I'm updating my ride with the latest electronics, got to keep up with the times you know. 

Kamala

 Prior to the recent political happening I hadn't heard much about Kamala Harris. I've learned a great deal about, her stated values, what she supports, and all that. I strongly disagree with everything she stands for. We are ideologically opposed. It has nothing to do with her gender or her race, it has everything to do with what she supports. I have made several comments and observations concerning her being chosen for the vice presidential spot. The fact that choice was based, in my opinion, heavily on the fact that she is a woman, and one " of color " doesn't sit very well with me. Let's not forget she couldn't gain support during the primaries. The reason for that? She is too radical even for the majority of Democrats, and that's saying something. She even called Joe Biden a racist, to his face, during those debates. And now supposedly, all is forgiven. The fact that she also stated she believed the women accusing Joe Biden of sexual misconduct and now agrees to be his running fact also tells me a great deal about her character. Now this " champion " of women and minorities has decided to join forces with a racist ( her words not mine ) and an abuser of women ( again her words ) for a chance to be vice president should signal everyone just where her true loyalties lie; with herself. Throw everyone else under the bus I'm getting on! Despicable woman. But it is what it is and we shall all see how it turns out in November.
 But I woke up this morning with that name on my mind, Kamala. I had heard there was some controversy about the correct pronunciation. Someone being called a racist for mispronouncing it, Tucker Carlson I believe? Whatever the case it has something to do with the proper inflection in the pronunciation. Tomato/Tomato I suppose. Whatever. I only have one other reference in regard to that name. Kamala was a professional wrestler back in the eighties. He was billed as the Ugandan giant. Of course he was really an african-american man from Mississippi. Coincidently his real name was James Harris. Could they be related? Now he pronounced the name Kamala the way Tucker said it and that's the way I say it too. Doesn't have a thing to do with race, has to do with language. I wasn't aware that Kamala was a non gender specific name. I thought it was a guys name, although you can never be sure of that. Well today you can't be sure of gender, sooo. But I was amused that we have now decided to argue about how to say a name. I always found Kamala to be an amusing character in the WWF organization. That was back in the day when everyone wasn't offended by any of that stuff. If they tried any of that today heads would be exploding and liberals taken to the emergency rooms! LOl. So now I have to try to remain focused on this new Kamala, although the other one comes to mind each time I hear the name. I'm further amused that there last names are the same. Figure the odds of that happening.
 In case you are not a fan of professional wrestling and never heard of Kamala, the Ugandan giant, here is a photo of him, in his ring attire.
                                                                           

a few thoughts

 So I'm sitting at my computer as I do most every morning, checking my e-mail, the memories page and my timeline. It has become a part of the morning routine. After that I usually begin writing my blog posting. This morning it is 5:30 and I'm just beginning that process. I feel like I'm running a bit behind although there is no schedule to be followed. But our daily routine begins to feel like a schedule to us, doesn't it? It sure sees that way to me. I have discovered the older I get the more I feel the need to follow the schedule! Strange , when I was younger I was always getting off schedule and not worrying about it at all. Could be, subconsciously, I figured I had plenty of time. Guess that says something about my subconscious today. Well whatever the case may be, I have begun to write my thoughts for this morning.
 The big news was Biden picking a VP. Kamala Harris. A bit of a surprise seeing as she called him a racist, to his face, on national television not that long ago. But Joe said ,, he put that behind him, all is forgiven. Hey, it's just politics right, you can't take that stuff seriously. I expect he doesn't really remember it anyway, it's unfortunate but I'm thinking his memory is slipping, dementia is a terrible thing I wouldn't wish on anyone but it should also be acknowledged. Whatever. Now Kamala is someone I can't support at all, I know what a surprise. She supports too many things I oppose. The least of which is abortion! The main stream media has repeatedly called her a " woman of color. " Yes, that's what they are saying, waving that phrase around like a flag. It's almost as though they believe that solidifies her qualification for the job, she's a " woman of color. " So you're saying, she's a colored woman? I thought we quit saying that back in the sixties, isn't it offensive? Well, I suppose a change in syntax justifies that, you know, just change the meaning a bit to suit the occasion. I'm certain The Jamaican and Indian ( not native american Indians, that would be elizabeth warren, but Indians from India ) communities are proud to have her selected. Well Joe did say it would be a woman, at least someone of a different gender than himself, there are numerous choices these days, and someone " of color " or " colored " depending on how you hear it. I suppose I'm a racist because I hear colored woman. It can't be racist to say, " of color. " Strangely I'm white and that's a color but I'm not a man of color. I wonder what color Kamala says she is? Must be in the brown family, definitely not black. It will be an interesting campaign. Kamala couldn't even manage 2% support from her own party back in the primaries. Not that it matters a whole lot. The left hasn't chosen the " best " qualified candidates" they have chosen based on polls and polling results. Who, could, maybe, possibly, might win election? And more importantly, who can we (the dnc elites ) control should they win.
 I am happy to see this move forward a bit, maybe Joe will come out of his basement. The summer is beginning to wind down and the focus shifting to fall things. Halloween is being canceled, along with Christmas I suspect, Santa Claus being quarantined and all. The news exclaims coronavirus cases skyrocketing by 90% with the mention of school. No surprise to me, could have predicted that back in march. The teachers union will leverage this to their advantage, you know being on the " front lines" and all. It's playing politics with the children! Let's take this opportunity to indoctrinate them a little bit more, making them more compliant. Be afraid children, be very afraid. Someone out there might, could have, possibly be carrying a disease that will kill you! Wash your hands, use hand sanitizer, cover your mouth and nose, wear a face shield, until you become completely neurotic! Counselors will be available, for free when school reopens. Maybe next year kids. This is war!
 Meanwhile Baltimore has asked for a " cease fire " weekend. It's somewhat of a normal thing for the city, they do that every once in a while. They just ask people to stop shooting each other. I think they made it one whole day, once. It was quite the victory until the celebration, when someone got shot. Seattle is having their Police Chief retire, she's had enough of it. Can't say as I blame her. Did you know she is a black lady? That's what she said, she didn't say she was a lady of color. Thing is, it doesn't matter what she is or isn't she is fed up with the liberal nonsense. If she can't do her job, she is retiring. I wish her well. I saw another article claiming Colorado was going to change the way they allocated their electoral votes, the intent is to help the Democrats. Well, it is true that the states get to decide that much, they don't get to decide how many electoral votes they get however. Colorado currently allocates all electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. 48 out the 50 do. The other two distribute them based on Congressional district results, as a result some votes can go to either party. Well, it's politics and confusion reigns supreme.
 Time for me to move on, get my day started away from this keyboard. Maybe cut the grass although the humidity is just crazy this morning, 95%. It's not the heat, it's the humidity. Some things just never change. The names may change, but things remain pretty much the same. I admit I'm anxious for Harris to debate Pence. Should be entertaining. Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Harris on stage and her rating plummeted. In fact she dropped out of the race shortly after that. Pence is not rattled easily and I'm certain will do a great job. Her record is nothing to brag about, her big accomplishment was locking up more African-American men for smoking pot than any other prosecutor! When asked if she had ever smoked pot, she just laughed. Best not talk about social justice Kamala. Maybe stick to your support for the "new green deal" deal with that cow flatulence and those pesky airplanes instead. 

someone to trust

 I have lost all confidence in the main stream media. I listened, and have been listening for some time now, as the press has been 95% negative toward Donald Trump. I get it, all those big donors that contributed to Hillary Clintons' campaign were expecting a return on their investment. Then the unthinkable happened, Trump wins the election. From just moments after that it was announced the push was on to either remove him from office or discredit him somehow. Hey, that was a lot of money to lose. And make no mistake about it, the left controls the mainstream media outlets and the press, for the most part. So it began, the Russians somehow rigged the election for Donald Trump. Then we needed to eliminate the electoral college. The accusations and innuendos have only grown is size and and scope. Fast forward to today. Today the media is trying to convince everyone that Donald Trump is going to eliminate social security altogether. Yes, he will singlehandedly pull the rug out from under sixty four million people that are collecting that. His plan is to plunge 64 million people into abject poverty, denying them the benefits they are entitled to. And what's more, he is making that a campaign promise. That's what the main stream media would have you believe. And why, because Trump suspended a tax. An act that puts a few more dollars into your pocket.
 Now the same people claiming that Trump will eliminate social security are the ones proposing a three trillion dollar covid relief bill. Three Trillion dollars. No concern there as far as the economy goes, no concern for the national debt, no, no, that'll be fine. And by the way we should give social security benefits to everyone regardless of their legal status. If you make it across the border, you're eligible. But what if Trump eliminates that? Then what will everyone do? Oh my, that's a scary thought isn't it? And that is the stock in trade of the left, fear. Nothing else has worked despite hundreds of hours and millions of dollars, he is still in office. Does anyone else find it a bit serendipitous that two weeks before schools are to open 96,000 children are infected, almost overnight! Just like that. As if that couldn't have been predicted, I knew that would happen in March! Are you kidding me? But children and the elderly are the best tools to use when trying to arouse intense emotions in the general public. They already used the old folks, remember when everyone in nursing homes were dying of covid 19? Now, it's the children, my god, it's the children.
 I read that the covid testing has a 60% negative positive. That's right, the data shows that 60% of the time the test is wrong. And what's the answer for that? According to the left, you keep administering the test until you get a positive result. That is to say, keep doing that test until you get the result you want to report. That's the reason you seldom hear about the survivability rate of covid 19, greater than 98%, that's not so scary. Broadcasting that 96,000 children are infected with a coronavirus however, now that's scary! They are not saying that coronavirus is covid 19, not exactly, just that they tested positive for a coronavirus, like the common cold.
 Look I realize this sounds like an essay supporting Trump. I do support some of his policies and actions. His problem, and I've said this from the beginning, is he is not a politician. He's a businessman. His focus has always been on making a profit. But I'm not going to get into that discussion I offer that only as reference. Love him, hate, somewhere in between that's what Trump is. Spoiled, used to getting his way, using every loophole and legal tactic in the book, arrogant, boorish and brash. Yes, he is all of those things. Egotistical, certainly. I'd suggest it would feed anyone's ego to be elected President of the United States of America! Yeah, it would give you a sense of importance. And once in that position wouldn't you do your best to act the part, to at least attempt to make it look like you know what you're doing? Yes, I'm the boss and I'll make the decisions here! Not much different than your boss is it? No, not really if you are honest about it. We all feel like we could do better than the boss, after all, what does he know about the working man.
 All that being said what I'm upset about is the main stream media outlets and the obvious bias in reporting the news. As far as I'm concerned their job is to report the facts, not opinions. That is what the editorial at the end of the newscast was for. Remember that? Sadly there are many that do not remember a time when the news was reported in that fashion. Walter Cronkite, a news man, a reporter, was called, " the most trusted man in America. " And he deserved that moniker. Name a single reporter today that is even close to that. There isn't. Why? Because the truth doesn't sell , that's why. If you want viewers, that is to say revenue, you have to make the news sensational, a show, entertaining and engaging. The easiest method to get people engaged? Stir up their emotions. Tell them what to feel, what this means, and insist they should be outraged! It's not about reporting the news, it's about controlling the population. They are not newsmen, they're entertainers. And like entertainers they have their followers, their groupies, that will believe whatever nonsense they spew forth. But are they trusted? No, they will be discarded the very moment they say anything that displeases their audience. The parent company will remove them immediately if they veer from the narrative. It's my thought that is what is missing in America today. Someone to trust. Who can we, as the American people, sitting on the outside of all the political machinations, trust to report the truth? For me, no one comes to mind. Seems to me the only ones telling the truth are on You Tube making home video's. I may or may not agree with what they are saying, but I think they are being truthful anyway. So, like I asked, who can we trust?