that sounds right

 Happy Halloween. When I was a child I did enjoy getting all that candy and that was about the extent of it. We made our own costumes, usually hobo's or pirates, and went out to collect the bounty. I do have a memory of making a ghost to hang in the tree in my front yard. I lived on a dirt road and seldom did anyone besides those of us living there come up that road. As a result our holiday decorations were always minimal. Outdoor ones that is. I guess my parents figured why bother. Oh we did have Christmas lights, that was the big deal, although as kids we heard complaints about the electric bill. Thing is, those old lights did draw a lot more power than all these tiny LED light displays we have today. I expect you could see a difference in the bill. As for Halloween, I never saw anyone with lights for that, I wonder when that began? That, and all the inflatable things. I have seen some very large ones around.

 In years past, when my own children were young, I would have some decorations for Halloween. I lived on main street then. Even then, it wasn't like a big thing, not like Christmas decorating. As far as I know my kids don't do a whole lot either, a tradition continues. I haven't handed out candy in a number of years either. I just don't feel like sitting outside in the cold and handing out little pieces of candy. Yes, the little kids are cute and I do enjoy them, but it doesn't seem to have the same excitement as in years past. Another part of it is the candy itself. You would have to spend a good amount of money to hand out the candy that I received as a kid. For that reason I feel cheap about handing out what I can reasonably afford these days. I mean, I used to get full sized candy bars, and bags filled with candy. You remember those little individual bags stuffed with a variety of candies. The last time I handed out candy I had made over two hundred of those little bags and ran out! 

 The church up the street from me is hosting trunk or treat. It is a safe alternative for the kids. I think it is a wonderful idea and certainly a sign of the times. It is no longer safe for little kids to go door to door and run about in the dark. My parents would take us, up town, to go trick or treating. The houses there were all in a row, on roads with a sidewalk, and we could clean up block by block. Seemed like every house had the porch light on. If you ride around Greensboro on Halloween night you won't see many lights on! It's a little sad, but a reality. 

 Yes there was a day when it was all about candy, then it was all about an excuse to dress up and drink. Following that I would enjoy the time with my kids, seeing them excited about it all. With the grands the wife took to baking up a storm of treats for them to take to their school parties. Cupcakes and cookies in all the ghoulish flavors and designs. We would walk with them as they went door to door. Good memories of days gone by. I think they will remember Halloween much the same way as I do, and that's a good thing. You know as a kid I never did know what we were "celebrating" when it came to Halloween. Thing is, it didn't make any difference. I never cared why, just that I could. Dress up and get candy for no reason at all. Sounded like a great idea to me. A holiday without a cause. No pilgrims, no founding fathers, no God, no memorials for those that were killed, none of that. Just, kids get candy. Yup, I never questioned that growing up. Sounded right to me.    

a flawed hero

 We leave but fragments of ourselves when we pass from this world. The choice is not our own. What will future generations cling to? Old stories, old memories, and old objects. All become a curiosity to varying degrees. Some are nothing more than a passing fancy while others may consume us. I have done many hours of searching, trying to discover answers. I received some, while others remain. Pieces to the puzzle of the past. It's strange how we realize the future is a mystery, unknown to us, but so is the past. The only true past we know is our own. But we don't know all the circumstances that shaped our past, much of that is a mystery. Those are some of the answers I went in search of. I found very few first hand accounts, a few newspaper articles, and hints from history itself. Armed with what little information I have I have formed opinions and generalizations about those ancestors. I'm certain they are highly inaccurate if I were able to talk directly to those ancestors. 

 Now with all my writing, blogging, and commenting on social media my descendants will certainly have a great deal more to go on. That's if anyone of them should take an interest that is. Those descendants that knew you personally most likely will not take much interest, feeling they already know. It is those descendants that never knew you that may become interested. As I discovered filling in the blocks on the family tree can be a time consuming task. Finding official records, records that are reliable, can be difficult. That isn't going to be the case in the future, our lives are well documented these days. Future generation should be able to fill in the blanks quite easily. DNA will prove to be a roadmap that is undisputed. Well, it already is. 

 After doing all that searching, I found I wasn't satisfied with that information. I really want to know more about the person, as an individual. I have found some clues, some hints, some newspaper articles and obituaries. I do have one partial autobiography written by a grand uncle that gave me some insight. What I have are fragments. With no one left to ask, speculation is all I have. I'm looking for an explanation. I wonder though, if it is even possible for us to explain ourselves. Are we capable of that much honesty? I believe that is a challenge unanswered by many of us. I will say, in all honesty, I'm not telling everything, not today, not tomorrow either. Beyond that I'm not certain I could explain why I made certain choices in the first place. Can we explain emotions? That is to say, why we feel the way we do? And even when we do, can we admit to that? So many pieces to the puzzle. 

 A while ago I thought about this same topic. My thought being, any autobiography I should write I wouldn't want released as long as there were those living that knew me personally. What I mean is, if a generation is twenty years, wait at least four generations. Historical figures are allowed to be imperfect, well they used to be anyway, although today they are being canceled. That is a topic for another day. But if the person never knew you, they can't be disappointed in you, know what I mean? That is the concern with an autobiography, the exposing of our own humanity. Also the reason I question if we can be that honest. Do you really want to subject your legacy to scrutiny? Expose the flaws in your character? Most especially the ones you feel you have kept hidden.  

 Well all of this is just me talking to myself. Just something to think about. Is it vanity that causes these thoughts? A concern for what other think about me, even beyond my death? Let's face it, I won't know will I? So, why the concern for the contents of an autobiography? It is a vain thing, I can see it no other way. To think that revealing the truth would cause harm to others is in itself a vain thought. Rather self important, don't you think. Ah but the goal is to be, larger than life. That is what I was taught anyway. A different generation with a different viewpoint. My heroes are all like that, even when I know those heroes aren't real, like movie characters. They were characters to emulate. That was their purpose. Sadly I feel that has changed. Is it a surrender? Maybe, but I prefer a hero's tale, even when the hero is flawed.     

how it turns out

  I was talking with my wife about the passage of time. You know, how the grandkids are all grown up, off to College and planning their careers. It does make you wonder where the time has gone. And perhaps with the approach of the holidays a bit more sentiment is being kicked up. We are certainly reminded the holidays are coming soon enough these days. I remember as a child the time between Thanksgiving day and Christmas Day seemed like a year in itself. Those times are long gone. But as we chatted it occurred to me how ironic life can be. We start out hopeful, making plans, working towards our goals, and in the end we wind up wondering how it all turned out. 

 What I mean by that is, we will only ever know how it is going, so far. We don't get to the end of the road. Yes, we die before that happens. The hope is that we will know after that how it all turns out, isn't that the promise of heaven? The promise is that we will have eternal peace. That would have to include knowing how it all ended up. Thing is, in heaven does time stop, just stand still, or does time continue? If it stops you would never know how it all turns out because it would never happen. If time continues on but you are detached from that, all you could do is observe. Well unless you are allowed to intervene. Do you think God allows you to interfere with things? Or is that also a part of his plan, to have you interfere with the plan because that is the plan. 

 Now some of us are lucky enough to see our children grow and become their own persons. We aren't always expecting that and may be surprised by their choices. Still, it's a blessing to see that and, no matter their choices, at least we know. Then they may have children, our grandchildren. That's a blessing also, it's a kind of do over for raising children, although there are limits placed on that. The amount of involvement with that varies with each family and circumstance. I have been fortunate to be involved heavily with two of my grandchildren as they lived right down the street. My granddaughter that lives in upstate New York with her parents, not as much, but hopefully I have had some influence on her over the years. She is off to college as well. 

 Today I find myself standing on the doorstep so to speak. Those grandchildren are all just starting out their adult lives. They are building their hopes and dreams. What is in the future for them? Like all "senior" citizens I think about all of that. Having over six decades of experience and over six decades of unexpected events can leave you unsettled. Remembering my own plans, my dreams and expectations adds to that. That isn't meant to imply a disappointment in any way, just that things didn't go quite like I thought they would. But I do feel like I know how it turned out anyway. Yeah, there is more to come, but let's just say I'm not expecting much. And that is another ironic thing in life, the concern is more for how things go for others, than for yourself. My hope is that they get what they want, that their expectations are met. I'm interested in that, in how it all turns out. 

 Perhaps I will get to see what the grandchildren do in the future. Families, career, that sort of thing. Perhaps I will get to see great-grandchildren, I hope so anyway. But I am thinking beyond that, wondering how it will all turn out. I've traced the path of my ancestors a good bit and know how that turned out. I'm certain those ancestors would be surprised. But then again, maybe they would not. I can't know what their hopes, dreams and plans for the future were. Yes the day will come when I turn that final page, but that isn't the end of the book. I do want to know how it all ends. I suppose the real question is, does it end? Eternity is a difficult concept to grasp. Personally I don't think it ends, it just starts over. Seems like everything in the universe is circular to me. What's old is new again, that old adage. 

"The hope of eternal life is not to be taken up upon slight grounds. It is a subject to be settled between God and your own soul; settled for eternity. A supposed hope, and nothing more, will prove your ruin." ( Ellen G White)     

Ideally

  One hundred and thirty six years ago today the statue of Liberty was dedicated. She was called, Lady Liberty Enlightening the Word. As most people know it was a gift from the people of France. It was a show of friendship and alliance between two nations. That alliance with France extended back to the American revolution. The artist was especially inspired by the abolition of slavery in the United States and that was reflected in the statue. Among the many symbols used in the design, at her feet, lie a broken chain and shackle. In 1903 a plague was added to the pedestal, it is the sonnet, The New Colossus. It contains those famous lines about huddled masses yearning to be free. Written by Emma Larazus as part of fundraising efforts to build the pedestal it was written in 1885. It was not, and was never intended to be, an official government statement of policy. In 1885 the funds to build the pedestal were just not there. Pulitzer, yes that Pulitzer, offered to publish the name of anyone donating to the building fund in his newspaper, New York World. He received over 120,000 names and raised in excess of 100,000 dollars allowing the project to be completed.

 Lady Liberty has always stood for the friendship between nations. Other meanings and symbolisms have been attached to her over the last 136 years. Emma, the sixteen year old girl that composed that Sonnet was an activist for immigrants, especially Jewish immigrants. That was the inspiration for her sonnet. The New Colossus was a comparison with the "Old Colossus" the one that stood at the harbor of Rhodes. Yes, sixteen year old children in America knew their ancient Greek history back then. I wonder how many would know today. This colossus would be a symbol of hope and freedom, not a demonstration of military might. The sonnet describes an idealistic vision of life in America. Sixteen year old children tend to be idealistic in their views, as a matter of course.

 Lady Liberty does serve as a welcoming beacon of hope. You have reached a country, a land, were you can live free. Freedom however, as we all know, or should know, is not free at all. Lady Liberty welcomes everyone to her door, but that welcome doesn't include carte blanche access! That is the idealistic views of a child. The reality is one has to meet certain requirements. Those requirements have been loosened over time, but the obligation to comply hasn't. You are a guest in this country until you have established yourself, and gained the privilege of becoming a citizen. You must pledge your allegiance to this country! You came here for a new life, not to reestablish your old one! 

 Well that's todays history lesson. I've had the morning news on for an hour or so and no mention of that anniversary. I did hear though that the United States issued its' first passport with a Gender X designation. Here is what Google says that is: X-gender is a gender identity, not a romantic or sexual orientation. X-gender people may feel attraction to men, women, both, and/or other X-gender people, or they may be asexual (feeling no sexual attraction to anybody). And I question why is that important to know? There really are only two genders, male and female, you are one or the other regardless. But that makes the news. Seems a bit idealistic to me, this notion that I can simply identify any way I like and the world accepts that as fact. X-gender people may or may not feel sexual attraction. Does that really need to be on your passport? Think about that? I'm checking your identity, that's the purpose of a passport after all, only to discover that you identify as gender-x. How is that different from when I check other passports? Do the other passports identify your sexual preferences or a lack of preference or that you have no preference? No, they just identify your biological gender, you are either a male or female. And, now think about this, I really don't know anything about your preferences unless you tell me! Do I need to know? No, probably don't have any need for that information. So you are saying gender isn't related to sex and/or romance but because men are generally attracted to women, and women to men, you need to inform the world you might not like any one of them, or something else? 

 But gender isn't involved with that, and that's why I need to identify my gender. Perhaps a bit idealistic in a fantasy sort of way. A method to advertise aberrant behavior? Yeah, you are something different alright. You know what? I don't need to know that. That doesn't identify you, at least that is what those folks are always saying, it doesn't identify me. Seems like it can if you want it to, at least according to the government. It's all very confusing if you ask me. I'll stick with reality, you are either male or female. 

 A person has gone missing. What's the description? About 5 foot eight, 150 lbs., identifies as gender-x, last seen dressed in gender neutral clothing. May or may not be sexually attracted to other people. That's all I got. 

The new norm?

  You know I'm not bothered by the things I don't know about others, that's how that works. So, I was just thinking that if you didn't tell me, I wouldn't be upset. However when you insist I change my thoughts to suit you, that's where issues may occur. Take for instance I don't like Pumpkin pie. Many people are surprised when I tell them that, as surprised as I am when someone tells me they don't like lobster, of course, I seldom tell anyone I don't like Pumpkin pie unless they have a need to know that, like they want me to eat it. I politely say, no thanks. And that is the reason we have always been told to not talk about religion and politics, unless you are talking to those in your inner circle. Never, in company, always in private. You went to the church of your choice to show others what you believed in, that was the clue. And you had suspicions about just what they were doing in those other churches. You knew that your church was doing it right, the others, well our God is a forgiving God, so I'm certain he understands. 

 When it came politics we seldom mentioned that directly. The wearing of a campaign button or putting a bumper sticker on the car was about it. People went to listen to the candidates, usually only the one for their party, and only shared their thoughts with others at that rally. It was a kind of unspoken code, you didn't attack another on his political views, or on his religious views. You just kept that to yourself. Well. it was alright to attack the Democrats if you were with other Republicans, and vice-versa, but not directly. 

 Nothing stirs emotions more than those two subjects; except for money matters that is. And money is related to the former two. Religion attempts to assure us of eternal comfort, free from bills, illness, and whoever is in the other political party. Politics is the attempt to impose your thoughts and desires on others. That's the real reason they stir the emotion so. And religion and politics are morality based systems. Yes, they are both based in right and wrong, and isn't that what morality is all about? 

 All of that brings me to this mornings thought. I'm not bothered by the things I don't know about you. So I wonder how it came to be that we seem to have forgotten the lesson. Today we broadcast our morality and insist upon others accepting that morality. That is being done with the full knowledge, indeed with the expectation, that it will greatly upset others. Why? I'm not sure I have an answer for that. Just seems to me if I keep that stuff to myself, I have nothing to be concerned about. That's because I feel like this: if I accept whatever behavior I engage in as moral, it is moral to me. That is to say it should not be dependent upon you accepting that behavior. Just as I don't like Pumpkin pie I don't advertise that, and then insist you should hate it too! 

  Morality is an individual thing, a private thing. It is only when my morality is in conflict with the law that others need to be aware, or informed of that. Morality and Law are both normative systems. The United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian traditions. That is the reason some of our laws reflect the morals of those systems of belief. What was also included was that we must be tolerant of others beliefs, and so no restrictions were imposed regarding that. That is often called the separation of church and state. That separation however, is not an endorsement, nor a condemnation of a moral system, it is a simple acknowledgement that differing beliefs exists. And with morals, we only know what we are told by others regarding their morality, or it is judged by there actions. What needs to be understood is that is a two way street. My feelings regarding my moral code are just as strong as yours. Still, it is incumbent upon each of us, as citizens, to support the law as the normative system regarding our public actions. Anything else is an attempt to change the norm. A civil war was fought over just that beginning in 1861. It is estimated 1 and  half million lives were lost in that war. The norm was changed! No longer would the holding of slaves, as property, be the normal thing. Yes it took the United States seventy six years to change that. What precipitated the change? Money mostly. It is interesting to note that the United States never made any law legalizing slavery, just laws restricting it! Yes, British colonies practiced slavery under British law, but not the United States of America. We changed the norm. Caused quite the upheaval. And yes it was a moral issue.

 Thing there is it was a moral abomination practiced openly. That practice flew in the very face of Judeo-Christian values and teachings. That isn't to say it wasn't practiced by Judeo-Christian peoples, it certainly was, but justified by commerce. A lot of that going on today in my opinion with these Mega Churches and their millions in revenue, but that topic is for another time. My point is simply that it was abolished completely. 

 Today it seem the focus is on changing the sexual preferences of people from immoral to moral, creating a new normal in that regard. That such behaviors have always existed in societies around the globe is not disputed. Many countries today have legalized what we in the United States deem illegal (understand it means immoral) behaviors. They are illegal, because we deem them immoral. They are not the normal, expected behaviors. The big question to be answered is, can a government, can a society function without established norms? Personally my opinion is no. It's how people co-exist. It's also why you keep some things to yourself. Laws establish the norm. Morality establishes the norm. It really is as John Adams wrote: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." If we disregard, discard, rewrite, or otherwise fail to adhere to the principles in that Constitution, we are changing the norm! Forever changing the norm to what? A government without any moral or religious basis. Just what would that form of government be concerned with then? Commerce only, just the almighty dollar, anything goes as long as it turns a profit. Think socialism and communism. How is that for the norm? 

Influenced

 Another attack on freedom of speech has been launched. Facebook is at the epicenter of this attack, at the moment. That this insidious plan will spread across multiple platforms is only a matter of time. The first attack was launched by former employee Frances Haugen in testimony before Congress. Being called a "whistleblower" it has a familiar ring to it. Yes, her name is being released but the term "whistleblower" is being applied to insinuate what? That there is some wrongdoing going on. She has also been labeled an informant, although that has somewhat of a negative connotation so not used as readily. Her accusation of wrongdoing by Facebook? There are operating the company for profit! Yes, that is the big wrongdoing, they have utilized research, incorporated logarithms, and did so in the interest of making a profit. Why it's unconscionable. 

 And now another potential "whistleblower" has emerged from the shadows. Sophie Zhang, another former employee of three years working as a data scientist, that was fired. She had submitted a 7800 word diatribe through a memo leveling accusations that Facebook was doing nothing to stop hate and misinformation. She also says she has proof that foreign governments were using fake media accounts to influence public opinion! Facebook is complicit in all of this by allowing users to say and post whatever they want! In short, Facebook is failing to censor content that she  feels should be censored! 

 I have written about this stuff before, no surprise to anyone that reads my blogs, I do repeat myself, I'm old. Now I have been "censored" "blocked" from posting on Facebook several time for violating their community policy. I don't like it but have always said the same thing in response, it's their platform, their ball and if I want to play the game I have to follow their rules. It really is that simple. I am free to post whatever I want elsewhere and so I don't feel censored in a general sense. No different than hollering fire in a crowded theater, it's not allowed. I can go outside and holler fire if I want to! 

 What those people are testifying to Congress about is implementing government control of speech on social media platforms. No different than government controlling the press back before anyone could "publish" their thoughts, opinions and beliefs on the world wide web. What is being published should rightly and justly be the decision of whoever is publishing that material. That is freedom of the press. I can publish my thoughts, opinions and beliefs regardless of your thoughts, opinions or beliefs. 

 The federal government has never banned a book in the United States. Yes books have been banned on the state and local level, most often on the local level but never a universal ban. The books banned were always done so for "moral" reasons. It was misinformation, it was someone, some group of someone's, being uncomfortable with the subject matter. Facebook established its' community standards to regulate what they, as a corporation, will allow. That is the central issue here, should the government control what is being published? 

 What we are talking about, in reality, is the control of influence. The ability to shape the thinking of the population. Advertisers do that relentlessly and research shows it works! That's the reason over two hundred and forty billion dollars is spent on advertising every year in the United States. Wanna talk about influence? And that is the chief complaint from these so called "whistleblowers" The platform is being used to influence the public. It's fine when that influence promotes the government agenda, ie: vaccine mandates, but not good when any information is offered to contradict that. 

 What is the primary influence to the general public? Money. That is the short and sweet answer to that. If I were to win the lottery today and become a billionaire my influence would certainly be felt. Yes, no doubt I would be "discovered" as the next great philosopher and offers to publish my works would proliferate, as long as I was willing to pay. I could buy all the influence I wanted. If I made it known that I would engage in philanthropy I would certainly have a line outside my door. It would be like Home on the Range, where never would be heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day. 

 Influence, to cause another person to react in a certain way. Everyone and everything, animate and inanimate, does that every day. When I say, Good Morning, I am influencing your thoughts. When it is cold outside, that's an influence. When we read something, we are influenced. We judge the value of that information based on what? The person saying it and the credentials they bring to the table. How much do complete strangers, on social media, influence your decisions? That certainly depends upon your personality. There are those that are independent and those that are dependent. The government would prefer you dependent. If government can control influence, it can control! Read that again. if government can control influence, it can control. 

 How do you control influence? You control information. You restrict what information may be presented. You segregate, discriminate and punish those not being influenced in the way you wish. It's called compliance. Control people and business. forced compliance. Create dependence. You can only conduct business under the terms I apply.

 How have you been influenced? Was it fear of death, fear of losing your job, or was it gaining a few hundred dollars for compliance? Were you influenced by Dr. Faucci? Perhaps it was the Governor of Maryland extolling you, "wear the damn mask." Was the guilt laid at your feet because you weren't caring? You have to do this, not for you, but for humanity? Was that the influence? Or was it simply social pressure? Well as for me I have listened to all the advertisements, I've read the reports, and I have been influenced. I've decided to just wait a while and see how this experiment turns out. I'm not buying, not yet. That's not to say I won't one day, just not today. I won't be bullied into buying anything. I'm not that easily influenced, I guess.          

 

nonsense

  I'm thinking I'll make this a short one. I saw some comment/meme about this critical race theory stuff. This meme was attempting to say I just didn't understand. I beg to differ, I understand completely. The United States of America was founded mostly by Europeans but included all nationalities and races in its' composition. It was even written into the founding documents, all men are created equal. There were those that didn't feel that way, no denying that. It was generally those that stood to make a profit off of others by exploiting their circumstances. Circumstances such as their fellow men selling them into slavery, or arriving in this country without any means of support and dependent upon others to provide for them. Those folks would exploit them for labor.  It was those people that seceded from the Union and composed their own Constitution for the Confederate States of America. They wrote in Article One, section nine, clause four: "No bill of attainer, ex facto, or law denying or impairing  the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." As we all know a civil war was fought over that and the Union prevailed. It is estimated that one hundred and ten thousand union soldiers lost their lives in that war. Critical race theory would not be the law of the land, any land. The holding of slaves was a widespread practice in the 17th century. The color of those slaves mattered not a wit! It was only what profit could be generated from the holding of slaves that mattered. And it wasn't just in the United States of America that this practice was going on, in fact it is still going on today! It isn't a theory about race, it is a theory about making a profit.

 Now that is just the American experience. We are not the only nation on the planet. We are also not the only nation that allowed the holding of slaves and the exploitation of the unfortunate people that lacked, money and resources to establish themselves. We are also not the only nation in the world founded by white people! Many nations populated by every race on this earth have done the same. It isn't a theory, it is a fact. Yet now it is white Americans that are responsible for history, even before the United States even existed as a nation! Never mind the historical fact that it was Muslin traders, people of color, Arabs or whatever, that were purchasing these African slaves from other Africans and transporting them to the markets in the new world. And it wasn't only American markets! The theory there was simple enough, sell these people for a profit. 

 Well, I'm trying to keep it short so I'll just leave that here. Critical Race Theory is just a system to cause discrimination against white people. Yes, discrimination works both ways. The theory really is this, because our race was wronged in the past all white people, rich, poor, regardless of their family histories, should be held accountable. The only way equality will be achieved is when all people of color, regardless of their status, rich, poor, their family history, is given more than the white people have. That's only fair. It's a theory alright. It's nonsense.    

Paying attention

  I wonder how many are paying attention? It sure seems to me a lot of folks aren't, not at all, but are rather self absorbed. Of course I have always felt that way I suppose. Maybe it stems from being the youngest child in a family of four. I did have to just watch and listen a lot and as a result I was paying attention. Turns out Yogi Berra was right, " you can see a lot of things by observing. "I've certainly seen more than my share over the years. Lots of bad choices and wrong assumptions made. I've seen the consequences of those too. Also the reason I get annoyed with those that want to play victim. As I like to point out, you don't get to start the fire and then complain when you got burned! It's been my experience we pretty much get whatever we choose, in the manner we choose to get it. The only caveat being, you have to genuinely want it, work for it, and be persistent. Success has to be measured with your own yardstick! That is a little secret to life that many fail to see or understand. It's true your may be the only one that knows you succeeded, but isn't that enough? If it isn't, you need to reevaluate what you are doing. 

 We create our own happiness, entertainment comes from an outside source. In the same way that counting the coins in my neighbors purse isn't putting any in mine, depending on others to entertain you, will leave you broke. Expectation breeds dependence. 

 How many are paying attention to that? There are many actions we may feel that should be taken, by others, that are not. You shouldn't feel disappointed by that. If you do, it is because you were expecting something. You were expecting another to react in the same manner as yourself. That is simply because you feel that action is correct, by your standard. But they are using a different standard altogether. If you react honestly to your own emotional needs, you will not be disappointed. That is what hobbies are all about. Doing those things that please ourselves creatively. We are creating our own happiness. It's true even when you disappoint yourself! There are those that will say the greatest happiness is in entertaining others. It sounds good, I'll give you that. Problem is that creates a dependence. If others aren't entertained, you are disappointed.

 But we must remember we have a social obligation to society as well. We can not operate solely on our emotions and that is what law is all about. Law defines the parameters of action and reaction to a given circumstance. When law conflicts with emotion, logic and reason must be applied. That's the premise behind justice being blind. Lady Liberty is blind to emotion, not to the law. We shouldn't be changing law solely on emotional response. That happened in Roe V Wade and we can all see the result today. The wants of a few costing the lives of millions! Is anyone paying attention? Those wants are in contradiction to natural law, universal law, the right to life. We all have a right to life, except in the case of Roe V Wade. Our social obligation is to preserve life, not to take it. 

 Society is wounded. When, as a society, we begin to take from others to give to those that do not contribute to that society, society is wounded. We are seeing the results of that, especially today. It creates a separation, hence the desire to redistribute. It's an emotional response to what is a legal circumstance. Consider this, I rob the bank, but because of my need it is just called an undocumented withdrawal, it wasn't theft! Isn't taking my tax money to support others the same thing? How is that any different? It's an emotional response, not a legal one. What does the law says about that? 

 The government has many rules and regulations about charitable organizations, what they can and can not do. There are many rules and regulations regarding tax-exempt status for Churches and other organizations. Thing is there are no laws saying the government must give to a charity! Yes, the government is exempt from that social obligation because, well, it is government. The government however does regulate what social obligations can or can not be utilized. Emotion vs law. 

 Is anyone paying attention? When government creates dependence, government destroys society. And strangely, or maybe not, you wind up with socialism! Happiness comes from within, it is not an external thing. It can not be provided by anyone else. You may be entertained, for a while, but it will end. Is anyone paying attention?   

The pathway

 You know what annoys me? When I hear our elected officials saying, we need to create a pathway to citizenship! Hey, we already have one. What we need to do is ensure that people use it! Those entering the country illegally are criminals, that is what they are. International criminals as a matter of fact. To suggest that we should now provide a path for them to become citizens, after the fact, is ridiculous. You can't undo a crime any more than you can undo a pregnancy. Once committed, a crime remains a crime, an illegal act punishable by law, not rewarded. What's the remedy for an unwanted pregnancy? For those saying we should provide a path to citizenship it is killing the bay. That's a path, right? 

 I really do get annoyed with this mindset. Just yesterday on the news a young man is riding his dirt bike, illegally, on the streets of Baltimore, runs a red light, crashed into a fire truck responding to a call, and gets killed. The response is, an investigation and calls for the city to provide a place for these thugs to ride their dirt bikes. He wouldn't have gotten killed if he had a place to ride! It isn't because he was riding that bike illegally on a city street, no, it's because the city doesn't provide free facilities for riding. The Mayor even said, "it's part of the city culture" although it is illegal. So basically what he is saying is we need to provide a path to make the illegal acceptable. Yes, that is what that mindset is all about, we all know it is illegal, but we will create a path of acceptance for the illegal action. 

 Laws are not designed to be convenient. Laws are restrictive by their very nature, they are a restraint on society. We write laws to delineate what you can and can not do within the constraints of the society. This is acceptable, this is not. It's really not a difficult thing to comprehend. In 1636, in what would become the United States of America, the first set of laws were codified at Plymouth colony. Those laws stated what was not allowed and the punishment for engaging in them. There was no path for breaking the law and then being rewarded for having done so. No, the punishment was listed next to the offense.

 The first immigration law in America was in 1790. That law did provide for citizenship if you had been living here for two years. You have to remember that the constitution wasn't ratified until 1788 and that is the true beginning of America as we know her today. The British were still abducting our sailors and pressing them into service for the King. The British were claiming the children of the founders and everyone else were still subjects of the King! By establishing citizenship in this new Nation, you had a legal claim to being an American. That's also why we have birthright citizenship, which, in my opinion should be repealed at this stage in history. It has become a sort of reverse loophole. At first it provided protection from being taken by the British but now it is being abused to gain permanent entry status for the parents. Yes, the child isn't illegal but the parents are. So the argument is, we shouldn't separate the child from their parents. I agree, send the parents and the child back to their home country, There they can enter the path to citizenship. That path begins in their home nation, not at the border to mine!         

OFS (old folks syndrome)

  I've been getting confused a bit lately. When I was in school I received grades either by letter or number. I wasn't graded on the 4.0 scale. That isn't what confuses me though. What I am getting confused about is the assigned value. Now A+, 100 and 4.0 was always the best you could get. That was a perfect score. It meant no mistakes, all correct answers. But lately I've been seeing these stories about young people receiving grades of 4.6 and higher! I'm confused, how can you be better than perfect? It just leaves me wondering, is that real, or is that pandering. Is it an artificial inflation, something better than? As I said, I'm just a bit confused about all of that. ? Like 4.0 just isn't good enough to compete so something more is necessary? How can you be better than perfect?

 In other articles I have reading about the effect Covid has had on education. The test scores are much lower across the board. Well when kids don't go to school I'm not really surprised by any of that but then I haven't been to college so what would I know about that. When parents do not get involved with the children, encouraging, which in my house included threats, grades normally suffer. How many parents were involved with that virtual learning stuff or still are? But overall education is suffering in  America because we became too concerned with the children being entertained and engaged rather than learning the lessons! You have to teach the basics before you can teach advanced classes. Well at least that is what I always believed. Now I read an article about a fifteen year old that graduated from college, before he graduated from high school. Yes, he hasn't completed the course of instruction for a high school diploma but was awarded a college degree. Now I'm not questioning his intelligence, obviously a gifted person here, but if he completed the requirements for a college level degree should he not have completed the high school level one? I'm a bit confused about that as well. I'm just saying, hard to build the upstairs before you complete the basement. Well, must be some more of that liberal logic at work there.

 More concerning to me is this notion that the government should be deciding upon the lesson plans. There has already been testimony before congress about just that. This critical race theory stuff and all the sexualizations' of students into categories. Gay kids, trans kids, all that nonsense! They're kids! The government attempting to rewrite history and make all the white kids feel some sense of guilt for the past. What effect will that have on future generations? All the civil rights leaders in history simply want equality. To be treated the same, the intent is not to become the exceptions to the rule, but rather have the rule equally applied. When "measured" education, (ie: grades tied to revenue,) is the standard it is inevitable that the grades will be inflated. Doesn't take much of an education to understand that. Tell me I will get a raise if I work hard, then ask me how hard I work. Ask me, are you doing your best? I'm not going to say, well I'm a bit of a slacker, could do more but don't feel like it. See my point?

 Education has to be tailored individually. That is the role of a teacher. A teacher is there to inspire, to guide, to cajole, encourage, reward and punish the student. A good teacher knows how to do that on an individual basis, knowing their students. I was fortunate to have had several of those in elementary and high school. Some inspired my intellect, and others inspired manual skills. I did feel like I was getting attention from those teachers and it was important. I wasn't aware of that at the time, but those teachers were. Today it seems like the teachers are being instructed to, make the grades, and keep the money flowing in. This common core stuff is a product of the Gates foundation and the Department of Education. Traditionally curriculum was decided by local government is response to the regional needs of the students and the communities. Yes, students were taught what would be useful in their communities. As a result they were often successful in finding employment and successful in general. Yes cornhuskers weren't really instructed in trading stocks and students in New York City weren't being taught horticulture. 

 Well, I've wandered around a bit this morning in my thoughts. But these are some of the things I think about as I listen to the news or browse the internet. I suppose it is "old folks syndrome" and should be treated with some medication from big pharma. Common sense and reason have become somewhat treatable these days. Not supposed to exercise either of those. A prime example is on the television right now. A young person illegally riding a dirt bike at high speed on a city street runs into the side of a firetruck and is killed. Now they need to check the surveillance cameras and open an investigation into this accident. Listen, someone that had no business riding a dirt bike on a city street crashed into a firetruck and was killed. Investigation complete. A firetruck was damaged but no fireman were hurt. Submit an insurance claim for the damage. Case closed. See, it's not hard at all.        

as I remember

  Got up late this morning, after five, and so a late start composing this blog. I usually write them first thing and try to get them posted before six. It's a strange thing really, it's not like I have a deadline to meet but I get nervous if I'm not on time. I'm thinking the time thing stems from my childhood coupled with my twenty years of naval service. Growing up you were not allowed to stay in bed to all hours, get up and get going. I soon learned it was best to get up and get going, unless you wanted chores to do that is! It was best to make yourself scarce before you got an assignment. If you were really foolish you could say to Mom or Dad, I'm bored, there is nothing to do. Yeah, that was foolish. Learned that early on. And in the Navy, and I'm certain every other branch as well, being late was not acceptable at all. No, you had best be where you are supposed to be when you are supposed to be there! Not a minute late, not thirty seconds late. there at 0600! The consequences for being late could be restricted to the ship or base, a half a months pay, or reduced in rank, to name a few. No excuses! None, nada, zip. But this morning, I slept in like it was a holiday! 

 But after I finally got up and moving, wife made the coffee as usual, I headed over to this computer. Habit? You bet it is and a part of the routine. Check the e-mail and delete all that spam mail and advertising. That is definitely the bulk of the mail I get. I can't help but think if everyone had to pay me 58 cents for every letter they sent, you know like postage, a great deal of that mail would stop coming. If I were smart enough I could develop an APP for that. Bet it would be a big seller. They could use the money and gifts that they are promising I've already won. I win contests and give-a-ways daily. I do have to hurry though, they are limited time offers. this year. But when the mail is emptied I go to the memories page to see what I was posting over the years. I enjoy that, remembering what it was all about. Sometimes it takes a few minutes to recall the details. Then it is to Facebook to post my Good Morning salutation. That's a habit I started some years back, posting Good Morning. I remember thinking if this is supposed to be social media we should all be sociable. 

 Yesterday I had a short discussion involving the location of a business. That business existed over forty years ago in my hometown. I had forgotten what street it was on. My guess was wrong. Fortunately there were others whose memories are better than mine in that regard. To be fair though, I haven't lived in that hometown in over forty years either. That's my excuse anyway. Do you need to excuse your memory? I'd say you just have to accept that you are wrong sometimes, and sometimes the others are wrong. Something I have discovered, "Our memories are what we remember, not necessarily what actually was" I have reached the conclusion that often it doesn't matter a bit whether that memory is 100% accurate or not. It is the context of the memory that is important. We should learn from context, not content. The value of the story (memory) is derived from the context. 

 Well time to get going, it is after six already. The day won't wait on me! Not that I have anything in particular in mind that I have to do. I am retired after all and so get somewhat of a choice, I'm also married so there's that. It is best not to say, I'm bored and I don't have anything to do. Yeah, some things never change I suppose, in life or in history. When I look back at my memories page on Facebook I can see proof of that easy enough. The content changes but the context remains the same. Context carries the purpose of the content. Context is what shapes what others perceive. As to the location of that business, that wasn't important, the story of the business was. Well, if memories are important that is. Sometimes I think it would be better to just be surprised every day. Every day a do-over of sorts.  But then again, isn't that what our memories are?       

the last one?

 For no particular reason it came to me that the turn of the century was almost twenty two years ago. That doesn't seem possible. I remember vividly the concern that the computers would all crash, we would all lose our money and a host of other things. There was genuine concern. All that happened was I became a grandfather, my grandson Mark was born on the 368th day of the new millennium. He is in college now, where does the time go? Well I guess when you begin to think in terms of decades the calendar grows shorter. Isn't that a strange thing to consider? When you are a child a week is a long time, a month is forever and a year an eternity. Today, ten years ago was, just the other day. I have been aware that I graduated high school fifty years ago in talking with old friends and classmates, that is no surprise, but this millennium thing, it came to me as a surprise. Over twenty years ago? I spent forty six years in the last century, As to whether I make forty six in this one is questionable. And even if I do, I'm almost half way there! Well, it is what it is and as the saying goes, time marches on. The secret is to join the parade, don't stand there watching. 

 Speaking of watching, we all knew the Twentieth Century Fox brand. It has been renamed as Twentieth Television. There is no fox and no century involved. That happened after Disney acquired the brand. Fox still has a sports and news network however, it is not associated with Disney. The logo stays pretty much the same, the spotlights with the name underneath. Disney has changed as well, in my opinion. Appears to me that Disney has taken to exploiting child actors and singers more than entertaining children. Far more profitable I suppose, another sign of the times. Of course maybe it is just my age and sensibilities but a perception I have nonetheless. I admit to not watching many, really any, Disney shows these days. But still, I'm not hearing about any Shirley Temples or Annette Funicellos's. 

 Well it is a new millennium after all, things change. Superman has a gay son and Robin is gay also. If you are gay you have to broadcast that information, hold parade and rallies to support of all that. I haven't figured out why that is, seems to me it worked fine on a need to know basis, certainly was a lot less controversy back then. And there is also the push to advertise being transgender too, like I need to know about that! Well, as I said, it's a new millennium. 

 The last one started out with a world war, the war to end all wars, until we had the second world war. That was followed by an era of prosperity unmatched in history. By mid-century the wheels started getting a little loose. Life was getting just a little too easy with all those modern conveniences. With the building of the interstate highway system. That began in 1956, when I was just three and wasn't declared complete until 1992. I was thirty nine then and didn't even notice! That highway system enabled people to move about the country far easier, commuting to work began in earnest. More money to be made in the big cities, more shopping, more entertainment. Mom and Pop stores began to close their doors. No more wars were declared, we just sent troops to fight and die in other countries for political reasons alone. By the time we reached two thirds of the way through that last millennium our returning troops were being spit at and vilified at every turn. Social norms began to break down. In 1999 we started worrying about Y2K. Jack Korvorkian was found guilty of second degree murder for assisting in a suicide. Today it is legal in ten states! 

 Now we are in the new millennium. What is there to report? In 2008 we all got "woke." Yup, that's the big thing I see so far this century. This "woke" culture that is going to destroy everything if not brought in check. Just how that will happen I don't have a clue. When you nurture a society of dependence, entitlement and victim mentality, I don't believe you can expect too much positive to come from that. And that is exactly what I see. I am seeing the end of the Republic. I hate to say that, hate to admit that, but in the final analysis I can reach no other conclusion without something drastic happening to change the course. That the America I grew up in is in decline can not be disputed. Set aside political parties, racial tensions, income inequity, and all that stuff and just look at what is happening. Crime is on the rise and chaos is going to be the result. Many people are already complaining about lack of services, lack of entitlements. Many people over the centuries have warned us, a Republic will only last between two hundred and two hundred and fifty years. History itself shows us that if we but look. We are now 245 years old if you start counting at 1776 when the declaration was signed. I would say the Republic didn't really begin until Washington became our first President, that would be when? 1789, two hundred and thirty two years ago, so we still have time. This is the fourth millennium since our founding. It may be the last.  

a convenient life

 Apparently it has been a thing for a while but I noticed it first yesterday. On a big sign in the window it was being advertised, McDelivery! You can now get your Big Mac delivered to your door. I had to laugh thinking I guess the competition is getting fierce. Then I thought, well I guess that is a job to replace those lost by the kiosks'. It's all about convenience you know, and speed. Yes, fast food. 

 Flash back to the 1960's in rural America. Dad decided, for a special treat, we would order a Pizza. So picking up that rotary dial telephone he called Ma Bergman's restaurant and Pizza. He was told he could pick it up in about twenty minutes. Delivery wouldn't be a thing in my town for another ten years or so. And as near as I can recall pizza came with or without onions and pepperoni. Other toppings? I couldn't say. But I do recall early on there were only two places to get pizza, the aforementioned Ma Bergmans or Sams Bar and Grill. I wasn't aware of it at the time but turns out they were related. Bergmans pizza was still better. That was my introduction to fast food though. Later on several places offered pizza, Brothers Four comes to mind and a place close to the bowling alley whose name escapes me at the moment. 

 But I was remembering all of that as I drove home from McDonalds. My family never went out to eat, ever. Not even once. When I was in high school I would get lunch downtown, at Speeds. Different groups of kids went to different paces for lunch. The Marmador was for the "cool" kids. My parents thought it was waste of money for what I was getting. Large french fries and a coke for a dollar. Could get a more wholesome meal cheaper at the school cafeteria. Buying out, like a Pizza, was something special, and a bit frivolous. 

 It came to me that after that we had the drive up fast food places, McDonalds among them, although not where I lived. You drove to the place, walked up to the window and placed that order. They would have the burgers and fries sitting there, under heat lamps, ready to go. Man, that was fast! I had seen in the movies where in California they brought the stuff to your car, that would be cool. But back then you didn't want to go to a McDonlads as they weren't very nice, questionable hygienic practices. Then they cleaned up their act, added indoor seating and all of that. Just like a real restaurant. After getting many complaints about the food being cold and old, they began grilling it to order. Soon you were sitting at the table, waiting for your order, just like a real restaurant. Well, except they called your number and you had to go get it yourself. And, of course, you could just drive up to the window and eat that food in your car! Now wasn't that something? Get it to go. 

 As I remembered that progression of convenience from calling in your pie order to the various ways you could get your food, I couldn't help but think, McDonald home delivery, kinda defeats the whole purpose doesn't it? Why was fast food invented in the first place? The original idea was to drive up and get your food quickly. No calling ahead, no waiting for it, just get it and go! Then we wanted a place to sit, a full menu of items freshly prepared. Now we don't even want to leave the house! Makes you wonder why not just cook your meal yourself? Cheaper that way, and more wholesome too. Of course it does require effort I suppose, something we certainly want to avoid whenever possible. Life should be convenient!

 Going out to eat, whether at a real restaurant or some fast food joint was a treat, a convenience. It cost a bit more but was exciting and fun. As I mentioned when I was a kid just getting a pizza was somewhat of a big deal. It wasn't something you did often that much was certain, as a result, it was special. I do think all this convenience we enjoy today has removed a bit of the special from life. Just getting fresh popped popcorn was a bit of a chore when I was a kid. Then came Jiffy Pop and how easy was that? Just getting a bottle of soda was a treat back then. Having food delivered to your door. by a stranger? I don't think so. I'm so old I remember when potato chips were just potato chips, without eighteen flavors or options. It was convenient though, "pick up a bag of chips" make them Wise potato chips. Okay, got it. Didn't realize it growing up but now I know, life was a special occasion back then, today it's more convenient, but no where near as much fun.              

Just a fact

  It's an amazing thing how people will defend their position. I posted a simple scientific fact, expressing that fact in several ways, and yet I had those arguing with that fact. I wonder what the point is? If something is a fact, it is just a fact, whether you like it, love it, agree with it, or disagree with it, it remains a fact. The fact I posted was, vaccinated or unvaccinated you can still spread the virus and disease. It's a simple scientific fact, nothing more than that. I explained that even when you are inoculated against a disease that does not eliminate the disease. The disease still exists and can still infect everyone. In the case of say, the polio vaccine, it has proven to be a very effective defense against that crippling disease. The disease itself still exists and if you don't get inoculated against it you may come down with it. I even put it another way, saying a roof keeps the rain off your head but it doesn't stop it from raining. The objective of any vaccine is to protect the individual from the infection, not to prevent you from being infected. We haven't figured out a method to eliminate all harmful virus's and bacteria from the world! Not even by wearing a mask and using hand sanitizer. Nope, those pesky things still exist in the world. The absolute best thing we can pray for is natural immunity. That immunity is granted from a much higher power than any Doctor or Scientist. Who gets it is a mystery, along with a lot of things in this world. Hey, Biden is the President, so. 

 But anyway, I got responses from those that believe I should be vaccinated to save them. I really don't understand their thinking about that given a simple fact, yeah, the one I pointed out to them. Still I hear this theory. If people get infected with the virus that will cause the virus to mutate. Okay, that sounds reasonable enough, the seasonal flu does that every year, hence the need for the scientists to take their best guess as what formula to inject every year. I'm no scientist and admit to not understanding a great deal of this medical stuff but I do know one thing, a virus tries to invade your system. That's what they do, try to make you sick. If they are prevented from doing that they will mutate and attempt to attack in another way. The current vaccine appears to be somewhat effective, but the race for boosters is on. Are they really boosters or just different formulations? For me, the research was rushed, we are trying an experimental therapy, and it is being forced upon the masses for no good reason. I don't have any doubt that the virus exists, I have no doubt that it can be deadly, I have no doubt that the vaccine may be providing some protection and I am not opposed to anyone receiving that, if that is what they want. I'm just saying, you getting the jab is not destroying the virus, it is not stopping the spread, so quit trying to say otherwise. Look if I wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle whose head am I protecting? By you forcing me to wear that helmet is that protecting you? No, but the law has imposed that restriction why? Out of concern for me? No, it is just a bunch of virtue signaling and another source of revenue should I fail to comply. It's the same thing with this vaccine! That's just the simple fact of the matter. I say, make your own choice when it doesn't effect or endanger anyone else. To repeat a simple fact, vaccinated or not you can spread the virus, be a host, and cause the virus to mutate. I can't say for sure, but seems to me the vaccinated people would be the ones more likely to cause a mutation, if I can get infected with the present strain no need for a new one right? Seems logical to me. That is what happens with the common cold, which is a coronavirus by the way, and the reason you can catch a cold every year, sometimes more than once. I suspect it is also the reason we do not have a vaccine for that. And by the way, the survival rate for Covid is over 98%, not really quite as deadly as some would have you believe. You are far more likely to die from a non-communicable disease, like cancer or heart disease. Yet the majority of people still eat those cheeseburgers, drink copious amounts of beer and liquor, smoke cigarettes, cigars and marijuana. No mandates from government that anyone stop any of those behaviors. Sure would reduce the cost of medical care wouldn't it? How many lives saved? Well, we won't talk about facts.       

what you lookin' at?

   There was a day when you could judge a man by the books in his library. Today we would have to see his browsing history. That is a thought I had some time back and it occurred to me again this morning. I thought some more about that and came to the conclusion that it comes down to what you are willing to pay for. Books costs money, the browser is free. What I mean is, your browser is like the worlds biggest library where you can look at all the material available. The difference however is that others can see exactly what it is you have been looking at. That has gotten more than one person in trouble. With the books in your library that is the record, the cache, as it is called on computers. If you purchased those books, you probably wanted them and placed value on them. With your browser books they may just be an entertainment, or a curiosity. Both of those things you may not want others to know about. Could be you are unwilling to "pay the price" for them, if you get my meaning. 

 We have taken to using browser history to judge others. That is quite evident when it comes to politicians. Whether it is social media or their browsing history, or the contents of their "library" judgement is swift to come to those that get exposed. Tweets or dissertations, it makes little difference. What they say or write will be in a meme on Facebook within a few minutes. The same is true with sports figures. Consider the recent case of Jon Gruden. It was the content of his library that cost him his job. He resigned in shame. A high price to pay indeed, millions of dollars in fact. And the FBI, an American institution that is supposed to protect us all will flag those who frequent certain volumes in the library. What "books" are you checking out? 

 I can say with absolute certainty that if you were to check my browser you would be confused. I frequently go to that library for every subject imaginable. I'm quite certain there are some that would be surprised at some of the things I read or take, at least momentarily, an interest in. I can also say, there is nothing in my browsing history I wouldn't want anyone to see, I would buy every bit of it. I can also say, with a degree of certainty, I'm glad I didn't have that library when I was a teenager! Yes, I'm certain I would have been checking out volumes of materials that would prove, shall we say embarrassing, today. I admit in years past I did purchase some literature strictly for "entertainment" purposes, even though I professed to read the articles. 

 Our computer browser is a record of our thoughts. That's how I think of that. You can adjust your settings to clear that history on a schedule, or use other means to prevent that information being saved. At least that is what I have been told and read about somewhere. They have ads on television for that search engine, Duck, Duck, Go that promises anonymity. Could be true but I'm a skeptic. If there is money to be made, and someone advertising a product obviously believes so, I'm skeptical. I guess that is just my nature. Fool me once and all that. That is another difference between your library and your browser. Your library doesn't record your thoughts, the things you haven't bought. That's what I'm thinking about. Everything I have ever read, looked at, or otherwise interacted with, doesn't indicate I agree with that. If you find something in my browser however, you make an assumption. Find it more than once, find it frequently, and you are convinced. If that book is in my library, same thing. 

 Click on your browsing history. Read that list. Is there anything on there you would want to delete? If so, why? Would it be because you wouldn't want anyone to know, or because you would be concerned with what conclusion they may draw? As for me, go ahead take a look I don't care. I am not looking or researching anything I have any concerns about. I have an explanation. If you are reading this you most likely already know I write about everything and anything. I have opinions and am not bashful about sharing them. I'm also not running for any office, looking for a job, a mate, or anything else. All of those things should alter your search history and the things you post. It's unfortunate, but it is a reality. Humor, sarcasm, and wit often are misunderstood. You have to be careful. 

 A final thought. When the government begins to regulate the internet and the content on that, the government is now controlling the library. That can't be a good thing. Only approved books allowed? I was writing about Tik-Tok yesterday. It was pointed out that Tik-Tok and the content allowed is different in America than it is in China. Why? Because China has a communist government that controls the library. I would rather be judged by the books in my library than by the pages in my browser. Content and context. Can't really have one without the other. When the government begins to regulate what is information and what is misinformation, one of the other is usually missing.    

a new village

 I was watching CBS This Morning, yesterday, not sure why, I guess it was just on but it caught my attention for a few minutes anyway. They were talking about Tik-Tok and the way it is influencing children. I was curious about that as I don't know much about this Tik-Tok thing other than stupid challenges that the kids seem to catch on to. The had a man named Michael Beckerman on the show representing Tok-Tok. I'm not sure what his position in the company is. He did his best to defend that platform, explaining the rules and all that. And I say defend because that is exactly what he had to do. Now, not having a dog in this fight, as the saying goes, I didn't care about the outcome. I was surprised at the way the questioning went. And yes, it was a questioning, well really more of an inquisition! There was three reporters grilling that guy. I felt like they were attacking him personally and with some vengeance for reasons I didn't understand. For instance, he stated that Tik-Tok has a policy that you are supposed to be thirteen to use some of the features. That was enforced based on the year of birth the user entered. With that , they pounced on him. It is known that some of the kids are lying about their ages and what is he doing about that! Those children could be exposed to things they shouldn't see or hear! Tik-Tok is responsible for that. I don't know what they expected him to say. what can you do? Imagine people, children even, being less than forthright. Why it's a social issue that needs to be addressed. And they attacked this guy several times on various "problems" similar to that. As I said, I don't know much about it, or really care what Tik-Tok is doing, but I was annoyed at the way they attacked this guy. It wasn't an interview, a fact finding mission, or a discussion, felt more like they ambushed the guy to me. Then they went on about what the kids were posting, these challenges especially. They acted like he should have control over everything that is posted! Then I realized, I was listening to liberals. Facts and the reality of everyday life is foreign to them. It offends them. And that explains their reaction. They were offended.

 I couldn't help but remember when I was a kid and the things I did. No there wasn't any Tik-Tok or social influencers back then. The only thing going Tik-Tok was my grandfathers clock and social influencers, well they were called bad actors and delinquents, and I was told to stay away from those guys! I didn't always do that and sometimes I even lied about that when asked. No, I don't know anything about that. I do remember engaging in a challenge while in elementary school. It was called the "punk" test. The challenge was to rub a quarter across the back of your hand one hundred times without flinching. I did it, opened up a sore that subsequently got infected. I have a scar to this day because of that. Yeah kids were involved with doing stupid things long before Tik-Tok. And I also knew were I could "see" things I wasn't supposed to be seeing as well. Not much new about that. 

 In that entire segment on CBS this morning as they grilled that guy over what Tik-Tok allowed or enabled , as they liked to put that. you know those damn enablers are everywhere, I heard no mention of parents doing anything. I thought it should be pointed out that these children, especially the ones under 13, are not buying the electronic devices or paying for internet access, or data, whatever it is they need, to access Tik-Tok. Not one of the reporters suggested that the parents just not allow their children to be on that site. No, the responsibility was placed on Tik-Tok and what they were going to do. Didn't work that way when I was a kid. I was told the rules and if I chose to break those rules I was held accountable for that, not whoever or whatever provided was banned! The Sear and Roebuck catalog wasn't blamed for having a lingerie section! The Schaefer brewing company wasn't in trouble for making beer. And the shop keeper wasn't responsible for my lies! Hey, maybe Dad did want that beer and cigarettes. 

 Now in the interest of being fair they did talk about limiting the amount of time children should be allowed to use social media. It was suggested that responsible parents would limit that. My parents were very responsible, I was told not to look at that stuff period! No, I wasn't allowed to engage in what they felt was potentially harmful activities at all. I question this mindset that something can be only a little wrong, a little harmful or bad, sometimes, and that is alright. Well, as long as you limit the amount of time you allow it. They did talk about privacy concerns too. The privacy of those children under thirteen especially, should parents be looking at what their children are looking at? The answer to that is simple enough, NO. Children shouldn't be exposed to adult themed material. And Yes, parents should be looking at everything and anything those children are doing! They get there privacy when they are old enough to be trusted with that responsibility. 

 Yes I know it is a new day, a new age and all that. The job of parenting however hasn't changed one bit in my opinion. That responsibility has not been delegated to anyone else, it is still your responsibility! It has been said it takes a village to raise a child and I agree with that. Things is, it is up to the parent to create that village for there child. Where are you letting them go for play? First I played with my siblings, then those in kindergarten. My village expanded as I showed my parents I could act in a responsible fashion, I could be trusted. Today parents are just handing children these electronic devices and turning then loose in the world! Then they complain and place blame elsewhere when things go wrong. It was a big deal when I was allowed to go to the corner store by myself. Today kids are going virtually everywhere and anywhere being exposed to everything. It must be confusing and a bit frightening. 

to track and control

  I read an interesting piece about a new program in Australia. Now I know little about their government and their constitution. I know they have a Queen, Elizabeth II but also they have a Governor-General and a parliament. Well whatever the case is I was reading about their new system to monitor criminals on house arrest. I guess that is what you would call it, it's the same thing as having to wear an ankle bracelet. Yeah, it's a sorta, honor system. But in this program the criminal has to have a smart phone. When they are on home detention they can be called, at random times, and have fifteen minutes to answer. Then they have to take a picture of themselves in the place they are supposed to be, ie: their home. That phone is also linked to geo-tracking so the government can monitor where they go. The article didn't explain what happens when the internet goes out or cell phone phone service is interrupted. 

 The main point of the article was concerned with the governments ability to track those folks though. The concern being, if they can track those folks, they can conceivably track you. Perhaps they already are. Big brother is not only watching but perhaps tracking your movements as well. Of course we are all aware, or should be anyway, that a great deal of that is already going on right here in America. It's under the auspices of marketing and market research. That data being sold to anyone willing to pay for it. I'm quite certain the government has complete access to all of it. If you are, plugged in, like I am, and most of America I'm thinking not much is secret anymore. It would be quite difficult to not be connected in some fashion today. Not impossible, but challenging. I know my mother was constantly being challenged because she had no e-mail, no atm card, no online banking and no smart phone. She had a basic flip phone which she rarely used. She wasn't completely disconnected, but close to it.

 Yes we are in the information age. A great deal of that information is about you! Think about that for just a few minutes. Those with the knowledge and computer skills can mine the internet for information about you if they so desire. It wouldn't even be that difficult if you are on social media of any type. Computers already control a great deal of our lives. Let the computer foul up and you no longer have access to your funds unless you are keeping them in a piggy bank. Your internet connection, your television, and if you have a new car, can all be disabled remotely. Yup, those smart devices are pretty smart alright. How many do you have? The ring doorbell, and others, have the ability to "see" who is coming and going. Smart thermostats? Will the government dictate room temperatures? It's possible. Even door locks are "smart" these days. What you have to remember is, as smart as those devices are the person designing them are a bit smarter. 

 I do think we have to be careful about technology. Technology should be used to serve man, not enslave man. We are already seeing detrimental effects from the use of technology in a social setting. When tech begins to replace human interaction. People are not the same online as they are in person. It is easy to be bold, crude, and otherwise antisocial while sitting behind a screen. There are those that delight in causing trouble. I hear a lot about "misinformation" these days. All information is information, misinformation is a code word for not saying what I want you to say. Really just a polite way of saying, you are lying! Thing is, when proven to be true you can always just say, sorry, I thought it was wrong. It is for that reason we must allow people to speak freely, even when we think they are wrong. That is what free speech is really all about. Free speech isn't a tool to impose your views on anyone, free speech is a tool to disseminate ideas. Are we going to allow technology to silence us? Facebook and others are already doing that if you think about it. Technology to track and control?  

thoughts and things

   “What shall we say about those spectators, then, who can see a plurality of beautiful things, but not beauty itself, and who are incapable of following if someone else tries to lead them to it, and who can see many moral actions, but not morality itself, and so on? That they only ever entertain beliefs, and do not know any of the things they believe?”

― Plato, The Republic

Isn't it interesting that those ancient peoples thought about and commented on the same things we do today? Many people much more learned than myself have written commentaries on Plato and all the other ancient scholars. I have not made a study of their works, nor indeed, read all of their works. A great deal of it is dry and boring, difficult to understand. They were "politicians" of a sort selling ideas as truth. And Plato's Republic is concerned with the difference between thoughts and things. As he put it, entertaining belief without knowing what it is they believe in. That, in my opinion is quite evident today. And just as today those ancient philosophers were often at odds with the rulers of the day, and the public in general. Truth is a sharp sword and cuts deeply.

Now Plato was a student of Socrates. He wasn't there when Socrates was condemned to death though. Socrates was condemned for not believing in the Gods the government did, and for influencing the children. Yes, Socrates stated his truths and taught them to students. (children) Plato would continue in his teachings, all the while founding his own school. Plato managed to just die of old age. Plato was teaching, for the most part, the difference between thoughts and things. We can have the best thoughts, the highest ideals, morals and ethics and still be deceived by belief. Plato was a stoic. Scholars may point out that Plato was before the stoics and was not strictly a stoic. I'll leave that argument to them. What Plato was talking about, in my opinion, is the non-rational part of our psyches. In short, emotions. Emotions are often not a rational response to a situation. That's entertaining beliefs without knowing what it is.

Some time back I wrote, "emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides." That is about as close to a Plato thought as I can muster and I'm being generous with myself at that. My thought is the same as Plato's though. You can't just go on emotions, on belief, but should proceed on knowledge. Still Plato held his own beliefs about life and death. Plato thought of the universe as a sort of being, or intelligence. Not exactly a God to be worshipped but a creator of sorts, responsible for the world. Plato thought this world existed on many levels and that after death you just went to another level, a sort of reincarnation. He did teach that virtue was the ultimate goal, the way we should conduct ourselves. Wisdom was the key in his opinion. You could only live a good life by being virtuous. Only a morally good person can be happy. The proper functioning of the soul is how he described that. To exist in harmony with the universe. The universe being a universal soul, a collective.

Another way of saying what Plato said in my opening quote from The Republic is, not seeing the forest for the trees. That is the fastest way to get lost that I know of. We have a lot of lost people these days! Wandering around on belief and ignoring reality altogether. Yes they have great thoughts, great ideals, but no basis in reality. You have to deal with what is, not what you believe it should be. That is the non rational portion that concerns me and many others of my generation. The "boomers" as we have been labeled.

Yes, we "boomers" had our time chasing fantasies, dreaming of what could be, but reality set in and we woke up. It's my thinking each generation goes through a similar experience. The issue today is the speed with which such thoughts are disseminated to the public in general. In truth, it is almost a global experience. Appealing to the emotions of the young and impetuous will inspire action. Those actions are often destructive in nature. They tear at the fabric of society. Capitalism, socialisms, and communism are examples of all that. The capitalists are the most stoic of all the groups. Socialism is an illusion soon dispelled by reality, and in the end becomes communism.

All change begins with a movement. The question being, should we move off our current position? That is to say, make a change? You hear all the talk of redistribution of wealth. That is taking from those that earned that wealth to give to those that did not. Is that a virtuous action, or a selfish one? You hear all the talk of equality. Well. as I have pointed out in the past, in my observation "everyone wants to be treated equally, until they are." It is at that point exceptions and exemptions are justified. The thing is, each of us believing we are that exception or exemption.

So what is our position presently? Our position is defined by our Constitution. The necessity for that constitution was explained in the declaration of independence.

The opening words of the Declaration of Independence are as follows: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.

 You have to ask yourself what is the cause to impel that separation today? Is the cause solely for your own gain? That is, to benefit yourself? Certainly being given monies, properties, or benefits I haven't earned is a benefit. Entitlement must be earned, not issued. That is what tyranny is all about, the distribution of entitlement, although usually it just the withholding of that. The removal of morality and virtue from society can not lead to a good society any more than it can lead to a good life. And yes morality and virtue need to be defined, they are not transient things, not just thoughts, they are things. 

it was a Z-gram

 Today is the official day celebrated for the birth of the United States Navy. Two hundred and fort six years ago the Congress of the United States authorized the purchase and funding of a number of small craft to harass the British ships. Being a retired Navy man I remember having cake and ice cream on board the various ships I served on. Yes, we had birthday parties. That didn't start until 1972 though, when Admiral Zumwalt, then Chief of Naval Operations, made the thirteenth of October the official date. I guess he wasn't superstitious and just went with the historical record. I remember his famous Z-grams as they were called. He issued a number of them and some were quite shocking at the time. But I retired from the Navy twenty eight years ago and haven't really celebrated that day since. It's just an interesting note in history.

 Many people will think of the USS Constitution as being one of the first ships in the Navy. That's no where near the truth but she is the oldest Navy ship still in commission. She was built as a result of the Naval Act of 1794. Fact is, six ships were authorized and built  in response to the barbary coast pirates. Yes, it was those Muslim folks seizing our ships and men and demanding ransom be paid for their return. They had seized eleven in just one year! So General George, now the President, responded. Six ships were built, the Constitution being the third one finished. The names of the other five are as follows, United States, Constellation, President, Chesapeake and Congress. None of those five survive today. The United States was captured by the confederates during the civil war and they sank her. Constellation was scrapped in 1853. The President was captured by the British in 1815. Congress was scrapped in 1834 and the Chesapeake captured by the British in 1820 and her timbers sold off.

 So that's a bit of history for today. I am proud to have served in that service and think of my past shipmates often. It has been said that absence makes the heart grow fonder and I can testify to that truth. I do like the Navy a whole lot more today than I did back then. I have always wondered though just who drew the Navy flag. An Eagle, with wings spread, looks like the hull of a ship, but it is not, you have to look closely to realize the ship is actually behind the eagle. For me, it is a silly looking design and I wonder how that got authorized. I can only think in 1959 there was a different mindset. I also think it is probably the reason you don't see it very often either. Just my opinion though. But Happy Birthday Navy, fair winds and a following sea. 

 

 

    

you're fired

 Heard on the news that Jon Gruden resigned from his head coaching job. That was the result of an investigation into his e-mails. Seems as though he had a habit of saying inappropriate things, offensive things. He apparently sounded like Archie Bunker in his communications. So, he wasn't fired, he resigned. And he did say he was sorry, he didn't mean to hurt anyone. Well, what else can you say. 

 I don't know the guy and don't really care about his issues either. I am surprised that anyone in his position, in this day and age, would be stupid enough to engage in such. Regardless of the main stream narrative, regardless of any programs, instructional videos, seminars and protests, there are people that speak in such a way. There will always be people speaking in such a way. I'm not excusing his speech, I'm amazed at his stupidity. You have to know that sooner or later someone is going to say something and your career is over. Does he genuinely hold those views about the groups he referenced? I don't know, maybe he does. but maybe it is all just a bad habit. I've certainly heard people say things that shocked me simply because they were in a group or trying to exert themselves. You know, talking tough! It doesn't excuse it but explains it. 

 You know it's a strange thing these days. One of the main talking points, a point that is stressed heavily these days, is do not judge! We are constantly told not to judge others words or actions because we can't know what they have gone through. They are survivors, victims of a system and have struggled mightily. We shouldn't judge them, well unless, they say something offensive then it's hammer time! Say a word or phase that offends and you are judged, found guilty, and punished immediately! There is no excuse, no explanation, no understanding in any of that! Jon Gruden is obviously a racist, homophobe, a horrible person judging by his e-mails! Guilty as charged without trial, without exception.

 I have seen meme's about this on Facebook and have to agree with them. I am glad I did most of my stupid stuff before the internet. There are only a few people around that can remember that and they don't have any proof. With Gruden they went back seven years in his e-mails. That's a tough standard, seven years without saying anything offensive to somebody. I've already been removed from Facebook several times for inappropriate opinions and facts. Yes, facts got me in trouble once, not supposed to mention certain things you know, goes against community standards. I was judged, found guilty and punished. Today we have decided to judge historical figures on texts hundreds of years old. Yes, some of those figures so admired fifty years ago have been shown to have held offensive views! OMG, tear that statue down. 

 Well as with everything it has to be judged in context. If you are writing a song or rap you can stream together as many offensive and derogatory words and phrases as you like. Probably get an award for doing so, you know being socially relevant. But don't do that in any other setting, it is reserved for "art." What was allowed and expected in social discourse a hundred years ago most likely won't be acceptable today. I recall when I was young you didn't say the word pregnant out loud in mixed company. You certainly didn't use the "f" bomb! Politicians didn't curse while campaigning either, saying things like damn. Gruden engaged in language that is unacceptable in todays world. He had to be aware of that. Should he be condemned as an evil and vile man? You be the judge, or not. As for me, I just think he figured he was above all of that, untouchable, among the elite. He is wrong. As to his private thoughts, private feelings and views, I really can't say. But I can say, generally you are what you are shown to be, despite your own feelings about that. I will judge others, based on the evidence. He is wrong and should have been fired! I would not have allowed him to resign, nope, you're fired.