reminders

  I have said on more than one occasion that I'm writing these blogs as a sort of record. My intention is to share my thoughts and memories. I make an effort to not just write what I think will be the popular thing or attempt to attract followers. I only post the link to Facebook although it is available on Google search. Amazing to me that others have found it and left a comment or two. People from different countries even. Amazing. When I first began this writing, I thought what an amazing thing it was that anyone could write a blog or whatever and "publish" it, basically to the world. I remembered sending a bit of poetry to the local newspaper. They published it in the letters to the editor section, I know they publish everyone's submissions in the letter to the editor section, but it was still exciting. Published to an audience. To a circulation. No idea how many that would be, but more than family and friends. 

 This morning I have some sad news on my mind. I read of the passing of yet another classmate from high school days. I hesitated before beginning this thinking; no one wants to hear sad thoughts, and I have written about this several times already. But then I reminded myself about why I was writing in the first place. And so, I have begun. My first thought in thinking about this recent loss was perhaps this is Gods' way of preparing me for the acceptance of the inevitable. I know I will die one day, everybody does. Perhaps all this practice at saying goodbye is what will prepare me. I have often marveled at the "old" people that are still around and how frequently they talk of old friends. I also wonder, how they continue on. Mentally I mean, how to remain resolved to live. Not that I have ever considered the alternative as a choice. That has never entered my thoughts. I wouldn't call it resolve, but I have no plans to go anywhere anytime soon. 

 It is the previous paragraph that caused my hesitation. You could say the whole subject is just morbid. It is sad, very sad. Many of those that have passed that I knew in those days I haven't seen or interacted with in fifty years or more. Still there is something about the loss that affects me. I think it is a piece of the past and the knowledge that that past is gone, history. It is the finality of death that disturbs me. It is also the reason I ask; will I know it? Will I know that I died? I am not nearly as concerned with the life after as I am with that question. If I know that I died, will I be sad about that? I don't want to be sad for eternity. If I'm not sad, why would I be glad? That would seem a bit self-centered. 

 Well, these are my thought on this sad news this morning. I've been told I repeat myself and I agree, I do. I do think about the same topics more than once and as a result write those thoughts. That's the thing about life, it contains reminders if you are paying attention. At other times you are reminded even when you aren't paying attention! It's always hard saying goodbye, laying a memory to rest. 

 Here is some advice I found written by a name unknown to me. I think perhaps it contains a bit of the sentiment I feel. The part about a piece going with them. I think that is true for everyone that we have ever known, just to varying degrees. You might say the closer to home, the stronger that sentiment. Home is indeed where the heart is. So anyway, here it is;

   Tell your friend that in his death, a part of you dies and goes with him. Wherever he goes, you also go. He will not be alone. Jiddu Krishnamurti   

willing to pay

 I, like millions of others, don't want a war. But war is what we have. The sad part about that is that war is intrinsic to mankind. There will always be the aggressor and the defender. Yes, somebody has to start it. Depending upon your view, your sentiments, the aggressor will be assigned. Russia is clearly the aggressor here. Russia will attempt to impose its' will upon the people of Ukraine. Nothing about this is new, not really, the same scenario has played out hundreds of times throughout history. Sadly, it will continue as long as there are men on the planet.

 I think we can all agree on that much. So, the United States has taken a side, choosing the side of freedom from aggression. The United States of America has made promises, commitments, and treaties. We promised to support the country of Ukraine. The reasons we have done so could be argued, but that makes little difference in the long run. Those defending a cause, any cause, are always righteous in their indignation and condemnation of the aggressor. That's just how that works. We often think of that as being on the side of history. The prayer is that we are on the "right" side of history. Surely in this instance we are, isn't that the belief? Yes, it is and justifiably so.

 All that being established I'm left with this. The President has stated on numerous occasions that our troops will never enter Ukraine. We will provide support, training, weapons, and troops. Just what the troops are supposed to do hasn't been clearly defined however, just that they will not enter Ukraine. At the same time the President proclaims we will defend Ukraine. My question is a simple one, how can you win a fight if you don't get in the ring? I say that sarcastically because I'm certain our troops will enter Ukraine at some point. I see that as inevitable. Even if it is never "officially" recognized or admitted, it will happen. 

 What of Nato forces? If history is any indication a token presence is to be expected, at best. All those nations will be taking care of their own interests. It bears remembering that Russia is in their backyard! Yes, there are missiles, I know that, but I don't believe Russia is going to launch any missile attacks against the United States. That's a no-win scenario for everyone. They certainly aren't going to launch any land invasion. 

 China is certainly a power to be wary of, and they may align themselves with Russia, temporarily at least. But economics will come into play and China will weigh that loss against potential gains. Think about it? What was the first action taken in defense of Ukraine? Sanctions. Sanctions is just another term for money. The President is still talking about imposing more sanctions. Will money stop bullets? That is what has to be answered.

 I'm quite certain that Russia considered all of this before launching this invasion. Hate them all you want it doesn't change anything. I'm quite certain Russia is prepared for sanctions. Will China help? If there is a profit to be made the simple answer is yes. The answer is always yes if there is a profit to be made. Russia will cease its' invasion if there is a profit in that. That's a simple truth. Ukraine will have to make concessions to Russia. Russia wants access to the Black Sea, that's the bottom line. When that objective is attained, and it will be, a "peace" will be declared. 

 How much are you willing to pay? That is what Russia is asking Ukraine. They have shown that they are willing to pay a huge price to get that access. The Ukrainians are saying we will pay with our lives. And that is the basis of war, all war. The willingness to defend yourself against aggression. You will not stop aggression with cries for peace! Either you defeat the enemy or pay the enemy his price to quit. Is Russia willing to risk it all? Many nations have over the centuries. Many nations met defeat as well. Many nations agreed to pay tribute to other nations to maintain a peace as well. 

 Will the Unites States of America engage the Russians directly? My thinking is that Russia is betting we will not. That is the reason they decided to strike when they did. It isn't like we had no idea, no clue about any of this. We did nothing for a long time before imposing the first "sanction" on Russia. I'd say we aren't sending a very strong message today! Russia is testing our resolve and so far, all they see is that we are dissolving. Russia is prepared to "compromise" once they get what they really want. They don't need it all, not at this time. 

 Well that's my thoughts on all of this. I write this more as a record for history than anything else. One day my great grandchildren or great-great grandchildren may read this assessment and judge it against history. I often think I wish my ancestors had written their thoughts about such things. What did Grandfather Terry think as he entered the civil war? What did my father really think about WW2? Sadly, I never asked him that question. The question really is, how much are you willing to pay?     

wherever I go

 When I say home, I'm usually talking about the place I grew up. The place where I went to grade school and high school. I realize that isn't true for everyone, but I think the majority of us think that way. You do have to know the context of the conversation before that becomes true, if I'm talking about the past or in the present. Home came up in a conversation I was having and then, once again, I had to remind myself I was talking about fifty years ago. A half a century ago I was home. The reminder was that when speaking about "home" I am no longer the expert. Wait, read that again. I am no longer the expert on home. I can only speak with authority about home fifty years ago and that home no longer exists. That home is a part of history. My history, and my history is exclusive to me. 

 When I joined the Navy all those years ago, I never thought that I wouldn't come back home. In fact, during my first four-year enlistment all I talked about was going home. That was true with most of the people I served with. We all talked about home, going home, and when I get home. Whenever possible on leave or liberty I went home. A few days was fine, visiting family and friends. More than a few days however wasn't so much fun, my hometown friends were either in the service or working. They weren't around to "play." Home was still there but the house felt empty. I did return after the first four-year enlistment and stayed home for two years. After two years I reenlisted for a variety of reasons, left town and have never returned. Well, I have visited once or twice, once for a class reunion and to bury my father. It was on my last visit that I discovered, home wasn't where I left it, home had moved on.

 There were years that I spent thinking about moving back home. Then that became more of a dream, if I win the lottery. I've told myself about my roots and how I belong to that land. I've written and researched. I have ancient ancestors buried, back home. I have descendants and relatives that still live, back home. I have found myself claiming that heritage. But now, now I realize that is all in the past, yesterday. It is heritage and I can rightfully claim that heritage, or at a minimum, a portion of that. A heritage from fifty years ago. Certainly, a different time and place than what exists today. I carry a legacy forward however, with the telling of my stories, of the day when I was home. I have discovered you don't need the land, or property, to do that. I have photographs, artifacts and memories. And isn't that what legacy is really all about? It began when the first cave man drew a picture on the wall. 

 It has taken some time to understand. The home I speak of is history. It is what was as I saw it, indeed as I lived it. It is often different than what my contemporaries saw or lived. It's rather a strange thing, to talk of something in the first person, that existed in the past. Strange when talking to someone that wasn't there that is. Then, there is no expert, only memories and speculation. Memories on my part, speculation on theirs. Stranger still is that is true even when talking with others that were there! History is recorded by many voices, by many memories. Do I miss home? No, I'd have to say I do not miss home in the way most people think about that. I have no desire to return to that location. Home isn't there anymore. The time, the people, and the place have all changed, as have I. Home, I have discovered is a place I took with me when I left that place, I am home, wherever I go. 

culture

 Is there white culture? You sure don't hear a lot about that, if it exists at all. There is a lot of discussion about black culture, does that exist? Or is all culture just an appropriation or assimilation of the people we interacted with over the centuries. Every race was and still are migrants. The defining of exactly where that migration started is debated by the scientists. Africa is currently holding the title. All humans came out of Africa. But, as I said, that is debatable. If that is so, couldn't it be argued that we are all Africans? We just have different skin tones based on adapting to the climate. We also developed different traditions, customs, and religious beliefs based on the social units we formed. 

 So what is white culture? Is it strictly a European thing? Do all white people come from Europe? Well that all depends on how those people chose to identify themselves. Do the Arab nations think they are white people? What about the Portuguese or Spanish peoples? What is Black culture? Do all black people come from Africa? If so, what culture is that? There are about 3000 tribes speaking two thousand languages in Africa, are they all the same culture? That seems unlikely. 

 Now if black people have been living with white people for at least 15 generations wouldn't you think they would share a common culture? I think so. But we are being told that they are somehow fundamentally different. I think the issue is in using "white" culture, whatever that is supposed to be, as the "standard" that other cultures are measured against. But, what is that standard? That's my question and I haven't found a satisfactory answer to that. All I seem to find are reasons that every other culture perceives themselves somehow inferior or limited by white culture. What is white culture? 

 Could white culture simply be those that are in control of the politics? What is politics? Politics are those decisions that regulate a society. Whether those regulations are enforced by law or by brute force makes little difference. That's politics. Those in power will generally impose regulations that strengthen their power, position and finances. That is universal, I don't care what color or culture you claim, that will be true. The majority will always impose its' will upon the minority. That's just another basic fact of life. There will be times when the minority rebels and overcomes that majority, like the United States did against Great Britian, and establish a new political system. Ours being the very first constitutional republic in the world. A government of the people. It wasn't designated as a government only for white people, no, indeed it was spelled out, all Citizens of this nation would share equal protection under the law and share equal responsibility for its' governance. Is that white culture? 

 What is black culture then? Is it the opposite? What is different about it? That the black man was treated unfairly is an understatement. There is no discussion required about that. The past speaks for itself, history speaks for itself. You can't change what was, to satisfy what you wish had been. The black man is not alone in history as far as being repressed or abused. That took place all across Europe for centuries, one group attacking another, wars raging, slaves captured. all manner of abuse, intolerance and subjugation. And all Europeans are white, aren't they? The same could be said for the African continent. And all Africans are black, right? How is African culture different from European culture when viewed in that way? 

 What I find frustrating about all of this is that there can be no discussion. As a white guy I am supposed to just accept whatever the black man says without question. If I don't, I'm just a racist. There is no other alternative. Unless I bow down to the "woke" crowd and agree to their every point, I'm a racist. I'm even a racist when it doesn't involve race, only culture. Is race and culture the same thing? I say, no. They are not. Thing is, I'm not even supposed to ask.    

a revolting development

  Slept in today, didn't get out of bed till near five o'clock. Ah, the life of Riley. Gotta have a few years on you to understand that reference. It was over seventy degrees yesterday and we had the bedroom window open. It must have been all that fresh air that made me sleep so well. Supposed to be quite a bit colder today. That global warming sure is a fickle one. 

 After putting on the coffee, feeding the fish and the cat and taking my morning medications I'm sitting here at the keyboard. The news is on and they are taking about Marilyn Mosby, her husband, and federal indictments. The whole thing is beginning to sound like a soap opera. She is under indictment. Her defense is, my husband did it and he is ignorant. He has given a statement, a signed affidavit in fact, explaining that he filled out the tax forms, he screwed up the taxes resulting in a tax lien on their property, he was hiding money from his wife, and she didn't know anything about any of it. He's not denying that he committed criminal acts and his defense is, she didn't read the papers she was signing. Remember she is City states' attorney and he the president of the city council. And then I look up at the television and they are walking hand in hand into the courtroom to file a motion for dismissal. Hey, she is running for reelection and needs to get on the campaign trail. So far, no actions have been taken against Nick Mosby despite his admissions of criminal activity. He's innocent until proven guilty, even when he admits to being guilty with a signed affidavit! That's the reason given for not arresting him at this time. Like I said, a soap opera.

 In other news Russian tanks have entered the Ukraine. This could get sticky real quick. Beyond the economic impact it will most definitely have here at home, there will be other repercussions. Will it turn into a major conflict? I highly doubt that. The way things are today, I highly doubt that. Oh there will be much talk, sanctions imposed, outrage expressed, but nothing real serious will happen. At least that is my thinking and I hope I am correct. I really don't believe anyone wants to start throwing nuclear weapons around. It's a no-win situation for everyone and everyone knows that. Ukraine says Russia declared war, Russia says it is just a special operation. Like Korea and Vietnam, just conflicts. This is really nothing new over there, been going on for a number of years. The big question, the one unanswered, is what will be the Nato response? That will be answered by whatever the Unites States chooses to do. They can talk all they want, but Nato is the United States! Nato won't do a thing without the United States financial backing and supplies.

 But here in Greensboro Maryland it is trash day. I have to remember to put the trash out for pickup. That's about it for Greensboro news. All quiet on the Eastern front of Maryland. I heard where the truckers are headin' for DC and the beltway. That's about 75 miles away and will not affect me at all. Put that hammer down, 10-4. You know if it weren't for television and social media it would be like 1960 here in Greensboro. Two traffic lights, one convenience store, two if you count the Tiger mart, Dollar General and Family Dollar. The grocery store is Save-A -Lot, my son is the general manager of four of those, along with being the Mayor. Not much happening. Sometimes I wonder if many of the problems in the world today aren't caused by too many choices. People have become like kids in a candy store. It was easier when you just didn't know or care about what was happening a hundred miles away or across the globe. But, we just can't mind our own business as a race, the human race that is. Nope, we have to intervene with all our knowledge, our wisdom, and our help. As a result, the price of Cheerios will spike, and they might be a toilet paper shortage! What a revolting development. (You older folks might remember that phrase) 

disappointed

 I have various websites or groups whatever you want to call them that post regularly on my Facebook page. I have noticed if you click once on them, you're on the list and will keep getting posts from them. That's just how it works I suppose. Anyway, this being Black history month I have seen a great number of posts on that subject. Quite interesting, to learn about who invented what or who wrote certain famous books, stuff like that. That has been the majority of the posts I have seen. The first black this or that. One in particular, was about the co-founder of the Black Panther Party. A young man that had earned a PhD in social philosophy, despite all the setbacks he faced because of his race. My only comment was the Black Panther Party was founded to oppose capitalism and, on the precept, of economic oppression. That was it. I did include my opinion that that isn't much different than what the Democrats preach today. 

 There were quite a number of comments on that thread, some good, some bad, and others just outright racist, although racist is a word I seldom use. Race is an excuse, not a cause in my thinking. You cannot legislate emotions nor can you legislate what is taught to children by their parents or social groups. You can protest all of that, but you won't change any of that. Anyway, one person in particular immediately attacked my statement claiming I was putting words in his mouth. I pointed out that I had only written what the Black Panthers said was their policy, I didn't make that up, it was their policy. I pointed out that we are talking about the original Black Panther Party, not the new one. And yes, they are different. So having refuted that accusation he wasn't done. In the end I was labeled a racist. I have to say I wasn't surprised, but I was disappointed. 

 I had quite a lengthy and what I felt was amicable conversation. No name calling or any of that. I seldom go and look at someone's profile page so I didn't know his race, or what he identifies himself as. I also didn't ask. I did assume he was black because of his heated defense of the Black Panther Party. He pivoted to that when he realized I hadn't said a thing disparaging the co-founder of the Black Panthers. Further discussion about capitalism followed and about social programs. He was a proponent of "socialism" but wouldn't call it that and "social" programs are not a part of socialism, in his view. I ended the discussion at that point, it being fruitless to continue as neither one of us were going to change our minds. I bid him a good day. It was then I was called a racist. 

 I didn't respond, just left disappointed. Disappointed because I thought we had a meaningful discussion but apparently that wasn't the case on his part. I had dared to express the founding principles of the Black Panther Party as a negative thing. The underlining sentiment was, I'm a white guy and have no business speaking about any of that. 

 That was the big disappointment. In the end, despite discussion, I was just a racist. That was the final response, the go to answer for everything. It wasn't that we had an ideological difference, a political difference, or even as simple as a different opinion. It was, you are a racist because you are white. Disappointing. I was a racist even though I hadn't made a single negative remark regarding race. How long will the black community cling to that club? 

 And what is worse? I'm not supposed to even talk about this. I should simply agree, sympathize, and provide comfort and support. Interesting to note is that 8% of all millionaires in the United States are black. About 14% of the population are black. That means about 57% of all Blacks are millionaires. About 26% of all whites in America are millionaires. Seems like the Black community is doing quite well to me. But, I'm not supposed to talk about any of that. Disappointing, you bet it is.  

Old truths

  Self-governance. That is the great American experiment. It is the radical idea that the founding fathers had and fought a revolution to create. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. A constitution made only for a moral and religious people, wholly inadequate to any other. Each word, each phrase, each concept carefully chosen. The Constitution, it contains four thousand four hundred and fifty three words. That includes the signatures. There are thirty nine signers, two would later become Presidents. From the first draft to the final document, it took five years and seven months to compose. Ratified in 1788, the bill of rights were added and ratified in 1791. Their purpose is to grant civil rights to the people, in fact, limiting the power of government. That is best understood with this phrase: "the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Self governance. Interesting to note sixteen more amendments have been added to the constitution granting more power to the government. But you say, seventeen have been added. True but the repeal of prohibition removed power from the government. Not the power to tax it, just the power to prohibit its' sale or manufacture.

 So how is this experiment of self governance going? I'd say the wheels are starting to fall off the whole deal. Well, at least they are getting pretty wobbly! And that begins with the idea of self. Self governance begins with yourself! That's what individual freedom is all about. In a government of the people, the people must self govern their actions. I know, that is also known as being "responsible." Yes, you have to assume the responsibility for your choices. Given the prevalence of suing each other, corporations and the government, I'd say we are failing in that regard. But, let's look at self governance. 

 We all know the constitution, really the first amendment, prohibited the government from the establishment of a state church. The reason for that is easy enough to understand. Each "church" contains unique "wrongs" that your god may punish you for. A government of the people cannot adopt any one religion and therefore provide penalties for non-compliance with the state religion. Again, not hard to understand. You are expected to be a moral and religious person. The government does not establish what is moral! It isn't supposed too anyway. If we allow that, we surrender self governance. No different than the reasoning, everyone else was doing it. Morality is not something that can be litigated. Religion is not something that can be litigated. That is the reason the Constitution does not attempt to do that. A Constitution of the people! An individual constitution! Your constitution is supposed to be moral and religious.

 In the United States of America it was decided and agreed upon. There would be no monarchs, no King, Queens, Czars, or any of that. The power was in the hands of the people. We would elect representatives! Each citizen was to bear the responsibility of governance. Our representatives would simply codify our wishes. They are public "servants" not "rulers." The only caveat being, the people must be a moral and religious people. What does that mean? It means not self centered, but concerned with the greater good. Like good parents we are expected to do what is best for our family first and foremost. Our family being the United States of America. Its' my feeling that today we are failing in that endeavor. We are setting aside what is best, for what we want.

 We have become neglectful parents. By simply allowing behaviors instead of correcting them we are producing a generation of immoral people that lack any religious convictions at all, indeed the new mantra is becoming, trust the science. When I say "generation" I don't mean one specific generation, rather a series of generations, each moving further from the concept of self governance. Generations becoming dependent upon the council of government, instead of their own moral and religious convictions. Yes, the children love us when we give them whatever they desire, when we forgive whatever wrong they do. Soon the reasoning becomes, everyone is doing it. That translates to, it's right. True independence isn't the ability to do whatever you want; it is the responsibility to do what is correct. To deny yourself is self governance! 

  “...our children must learn...to face full responsibility for their actions, to make their own choices and cope with the results...the whole democratic system...depends upon it. For our system is founded on self-government, which is untenable if the individuals who make up the system are unable to govern themselves.”

― Eleanor Roosevelt  

I'm not the first to think about this. I think Eleanor would be shocked at what is happening today. I know I am. 

      

 

you gotta laugh

 Some things you can only laugh about. I thought to share this one this morning after listening to the news. The Baltimore city states attorney is under indictment for fraud. She claimed benefits under the Covid relief program while withdrawing 80 thousand dollars from her retirement account. It saved her 8000 dollars. She used this money to purchase two homes in Florida. Well, to obtain mortgages on those homes. She signed documents saying one of those homes would be her second home to obtain another tax break. She never even moved into the house but rather entered into a rental agreement. She has since sold the home. So, the Federal government indicted her on four charges, producing the signed documents that show her signature. 

 Okay, so elections for that office are in June of this year. Ms. Mosby has not yet filed to run but is saying all of this is politically motivated. That and it is racially motivated because she is black. She has claimed innocence since the beginning. This morning her defense team is filing for a motion to dismiss those federal charges. Besides the political and racial motivations to discredit Ms. Mosby her team has devised a new defense. Her husband did it! Yup, that's what I'm laughing about. The defense is now, she's not guilty because she didn't do anything wrong, her husband did it, behind her back and she didn't know anything about it. The same husband that denied at least seven times, on tape, that there was a tax lien on their property. By the way, he is the City Council president. The tax lien has since been satisfied, however. She's not upset with him though, this whole thing is simply because she might run for reelection and she is black. The Mayor is black, the Police Commissioner is Black, The City Council president is black, the majority of the leadership in Baltimore city is black. Must be that only she is being discriminated against.

 Now not one of the more prominent black lawyers/activists or whatever title you want to apply have come to her defense. No Jesse Jackson, no Al Sharpton, no Quasi Mfume. All have been silent, and she is acquainted with them all. Her first defense was simply, it's a political hit! The federal government singled her out because she is a black woman. When signed documents were presented, her signature, blocks checked claiming pandemic relief was required, she insisted I didn't do anything wrong! I want to go to trial today! A little later she closes all her social media accounts, except for her legal defense fund one, she only makes 250,000 a year and can't afford an attorney, even though she herself is an attorney. And now, it's my husband's fault, I'm innocent, I didn't know anything about any of it. My husband just signed my name. 

 What a brillant defense. Just blame someone else. Even if that someone else is your husband and president of the city council. I haven't seen or heard his reaction to this, should be interesting. A federal indictment on four charges and the defense is: my husband did it. I'm thinking saying my dog ate the paperwork might work better. You just gotta laugh.       

paying the toll

 Is religious belief the only path to emotional justice? I was writing about emotional justice just the other day. I'm not certain if anyone is reading or hearing what I'm saying, but I keep writing and posting anyway. Ideally one does what they think is best without an expectation of return. The reality of that is another thing altogether, but not what I'm interested in discussing at the moment. That falls into the, do as I say not as I do category. What I am thinking about is the function of religious belief in an individual, and its' role in society as a whole. Religion as a means to deal with inequities. Religion as a means to emotional justice. How else can man reconcile injustice when there is no replacement value for what is lost?

 When John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, and the lesser known figures were composing the Constitution of the United States; debating the content of that document during the Constitutional Convention of 1787; that was surely a topic of discussion. The separation of Church and State was not mentioned in that document however, only that no religious test should ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States.   The separation of Church and State doesn't appear until the first amendment, commonly called the establishment clause. That was ratified in 1791, four years later. Was their thinking based on punitive measures associated with religious beliefs? Was it in defining what was "right" and "wrong?" The first ten amendments, commonly called the Bill or Rights concerns the rights of the people, not the power of the government. Number one was religious freedom.  Certainly each denomination in the Christiam faith defines right and wrong in slightly different ways. The punishment for those wrongs can be vastly different as well. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that no sin is unforgivable, eternal sin can exist. A fine distinction perhaps, but a distinction, nonetheless. 

 Did those framers of the constitution ponder such? I believe they did. Emotional justice isn't something that can be litigated. Emotional justice requires individual reconciliation, what the church may call forgiveness. Punitive justice is the only justice man is capable of. Those punitive actions may be physical actions against the person, or monetary ones. None of those address emotions however. 

 All religions seek to bring emotional peace to the practitioner of that faith. That is their purpose. They do so by providing an explanation for the unexplainable. Whether they do so through a plethora of Gods or a single figure, that is the purpose. The god(s) mete out punishment for wrongs. They are the dispenser of emotional justice! John Adams knew that, and the proof is in his statement that the constitution is wholly inadequate to any people that do not have morals or religion. The reason? The Constitution does not establish an official state religion, a religion providing punitive measures to be applied to all citizens. Remember, in other nations when their "government" does that? Think of Muslim nations as an example, their laws are guided by the Koran, a religious text. People may have their hands cut off, eyes gouged out and put to death for religious infractions in those nations. 

 As I listen to the news and see what's going on in the country and the world it does make me think about all of that. Religion played a vital role in the founding of this nation. That cannot be denied. John Adams said as much on more than one occasion. The United States of America was founded on Christian principles, on the basis of Christian teachings and beliefs. That belief was so strong it was excluded from government! A form of self denial if you really think about it. It's like the decision a parent makes in the best interest of their child. Indeed, they were giving birth to a nation. They were making a government for a moral and religious people. They were not defining morals or religion! Can as much be said today? Are our legislators doing the same today? 

 We certainly believe we are, ask anyone. The only ones saying otherwise are trying to attract followers or convert the non-believers. It has become somewhat fashionable these days to declare that you have no belief at all! It has also become quite the trend to flaunt abhorrent behaviors in a public setting to prove your disregard for generally accepted moral behaviors. Even some of our religious institutions are now allowing this, saying it isn't immoral. Doing so to provide "emotional" support? In that manner no "forgiveness" is required. No punitive measures promised from the God(s). That is what I see. And that, that is the very reason the founding fathers separated the church from the state! And today we see the government doing the very same, insisting that monetary compensation is justice! Compensation is not justice.

 Monetary justice does not provide emotional justice and the result is what we are seeing right now. More crime, more unrest, and more cries for justice that a government cannot provide! Emotional justice can only be achieved through individual acceptance. As Christians have been told since the very beginning, placed in the hands of God. Can money replace God? There will never be enough money for everyone. Justice will never be reached on a monetary scale. How much is a life worth? Life will always contain injustice. That is a simple fact. Whether you call it sin, or crime makes little difference. An injustice has been committed. An act that was neither reasonable nor fair. For some things justice can be served with a punitive measure of some kind. When what was lost can be replaced. 

 Can justice be served when there is no replacement value for what was lost? Perhaps that is possible, but it is something I don't understand. Cancer took my sisters life despite all the efforts of man to preserve it. Can I sue someone? Can I sue the hospital, the attending physician or any other entities? No, in this case everything that could be done was done. What if a mistake had been made? Would suing the offender provide justice? No, it would provide punishment to the offender. Would I then feel justice was served? No, I would not. The emotional loss cannot be replaced, the emotional toll cannot be paid by another. It's my thinking that is the purpose of the God(s). They pay that emotional toll for you if you allow that action to take place. Emotional justice granted by acceptance. 

the odds are

 Just heard on the news. Casinos in Maryland will now give covid booster shots! Yes, that's part of the plan. Get your stimulus check, or your bribe, maybe you won the lottery, and head to the casino. The booster shot will be administered for free! Now, that's taking care of business. It's a targeting of a certain demographic. It's also the same demographic that needs services, like transportation, to get to the polls. The same demographic that needs assistance! Middle aged, making less than forty thousand a year and playing slot machines. That is the demographic majority in casinos. Interesting that more women gamble than men. So why not make it a one stop shop.

 Here in Maryland, they have had, and continue to have, vaccination lotteries. The top prize is a million dollars! A few have already received 50 thousand and more. All you have to do is comply. Get the shot and you are entered to win! State sponsored bribery at its' finest. If isolation, mask mandates, loss of your job or social ostracization doesn't convince you, maybe a chance at winning a million dollars will. Have to say, the state sure is adamant about getting you to take that shot. They have been at it for almost two years now. And the more they insist, the more they come up with these crazy schemes, the more I become convinced. Something just isn't right about any of this! I know, I know, trust the science. So far science hasn't shown me much, covid is still here, still making people sick, there is talk of a fourth booster and the same number of variants. But I'm trusting my instincts on this one, something just isn't right. The government, for whatever  reason, has created a sort of "mass" hysteria. Hysteria isn't quite the word I want but perhaps fear is a better choice. 

 But whatever the case may be, dispensing booster shots at Casinos just strikes me as desperate. Will they give out free play with each shot? I won't be a bit surprised if that occurs. Hey why not hand out some Marijuana first, that should loosen the people up, free their inhibitions, relieve the stress. Then give'em the booster and ten dollars free play! Maybe a tax break every year for every booster that you get. Paying for compliance? Sure seems like the plan to me. Is that the new model for government? You comply with whatever demands the government imposes upon you, including any medical choices. 

 Cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are all great revenue streams for taxes. The plan is to replace tobacco with marijuana, eventually. Alcohol isn't going anywhere, just being remarketed in different ways, think expensive wines and craft beers. Gambling is being extended, just a short time back Maryland now allows sports betting, what we used to call making book, but now it's parley betting and very chic. There is talk of legalizing prostitution as well. The city states attorney for Baltimore, the one under indictment for perjury and fraud, has refused to make arrest for that crime. The only holdup is in determining how to tax and control the business. Maybe they could be used to give out booster shots as well. Barber shops can be used. Hey why not the drive up at McDonalds, get a booster shot and an order of fries free. 

 The government has sent out 50 million test kits to homes across America. Now we don't know if anyone actually has covid, or any variant thereof, but we should test for that. Colon cancer is one of the leading causes of death. A test kit for that? About $599.00. That does include the cost of shipping though. I have yet to receive my testing kits and if I do, I will send them back. I refuse to be paranoid about this. Know someone that needs to test their blood sugar daily? The test strips are expensive, the government isn't sending my wife any of those. Why aren't the casinos giving out insulin shots? I'm thinking it is simply because you actually need those shots, you are compliant to stay alive. But getting the vaccination and boosters are not that way, therefor compliance must be mandated. Want to live free? Do as you are told! That's the bottom line here. Covid has a survival rate in excess of 98%, that's good odds in my book. It's my thinking the vaccine and booster shots aren't nearly as effective as that. The best I've found is 94% but that was reported by the manufacturer of that vaccine. So, I'll continue to play the odds, the ones in my favor, not the government. 

Just say no

  In 2019 the federal government collected about 52 million dollars in fuel taxes. That's it, 52 million dollars. The largest portion coming from California on a state by state basis. Regionally the northeast collects the most. The President is considering a "pause" on these taxes to help with inflation. The advanced child tax credit being proposed however will cost about 1.8 trillion dollars! Makes me wonder just how detrimental the loss of 52 million will be. Makes me wonder why the hesitation to implement that. Why do we have that at all is a better question. 52 million dollars isn't much when you are talking about the government. In fact, a pittance. We have lottery winners getting more that and we barely turn our heads at that. We don't even buy a ticket thinking, I'll wait for the prize to be bigger, you know a hundred million. But this administration is balking at 52 million? 

 Gas went up ten cents overnight. We are being told the situation in Ukraine will impact fuel costs. No kiddin', glad I have a government expert to tell me that. Maybe Hunter will get us a deal, he's pretty tight with the Ukrainians. Joe is blaming inflation on "supply chain" issues. Having fuel prices soaring certainly isn't helping with that! Imposing mandates, restrictions and vaccinations on truck drivers ain't helping with that. Literally thousands of containers sitting on ships waiting to be unloaded ain't helping with that. But it ain't that! Inflation is the result of the incompetence of this administration. They put people out of work, dispersed trillions of dollars, closed businesses and created general panic and fear throughout the country. That is what caused inflation! But "pausing" the fuel tax for a few months, which would only cost the government coffers about 4 million a month is supposed to fix that? 

 I'm not surprised though, I've been around long enough to know the deal. Give something out for "free" or have "free" time, like tax free shopping, no gas tax for a period of time, and people figure they are getting something. People upset over the rise in gasoline will be "calmed" down a bit if you take 18 cents off the gallon. It's like getting a coupon for the grocery store. Save 10 cents on celery and pay 20 cents more for the carrots, but you got a deal. Back in 1977 the government collected just a bit over nine million in fuel tax. In forty four years a rise of 5677.7%. Inflation? Yup, looks like it to me. And it is only a net gain of 43 million dollars. 

 I listen to the experts and shake my head. Seems they are giving the political response rather than the actual facts. Biden says it is the supply chain, others say the economy was over stimulated. That's political talk for spending more than you have. The truth is we, the United States, haven't been taking care of ourselves. We have been expending millions of dollars on illegal aliens and social programs rather than being prudent with our resources. We are thirty trillion dollars in debt! We need to stop borrowing and spending! We need to stop giving it away! 

 Look the price of goods and services tends to be whatever the market will bear. That's a simple business practice. If I can convince you that you need that seven dollar cup of coffee from Starbucks, I will sell you a seven dollar cup of coffee. What has to happen is the consumer needs to just stop buying, saying no to this stuff. Yes it takes self discipline. Don't take out a loan to buy that 72 inch television set. Don't finance a 1200 dollar phone! Did anyone really believe that a demand for fifteen dollars an hour wouldn't result in rising prices? Does anyone really believe "free" health care is going to be free? Does anyone believe you are going to get the best service when I am forced to serve you? If you buy 40 gallons of fuel per week and the government pauses the sales tax that will save you seven dollars and twenty cents. That will fix this 7.5% inflation rate for sure. Of course, the experts all say, it will take time, probably not until spring to see any change. 

 What a change? Quit financing your wants and simply buy what you need. If you're not buying, those companies will start having "sales." And what is a sale? It is when you sell a product with a smaller profit margin. They are still making a profit! I saw an advertisement for the sleep number bed. You can finance that puppy for five years! Think about that, do you really need a bed that takes five years to pay for? Oh, and it's on sale too. The government needs to quit doing that also. Quit financing dreams and start being fiscally responsible. The government needs to heed its' own advice, JUST SAY NO. 

Motor Fuel Tax Revenue | Tax Policy Center

emotional justice

 Can justice be measured in dollars and cents? It certainly appears to be the thinking these days. Listen to any television commercial involving those injury law firms. Get the justice you deserve! What they are saying is, get money. It is something I have noticed for a while now. I just saw where Remington Arms settled with the parents of those children that were victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy. That took place ten years ago. A settlement of 73 million dollars was agreed upon. The hail has gone up, Justice is served. The official story is the families are hoping for gun control. The truth is, people control what guns do, not the manufacturer of those guns.

 I've read some comments that Remington Arms must feel some complicity in what happened, that's why they are settling the case. Well, the widow of the Winchester Company did, Sarah Winchester, but I'm thinking that isn't the case here. After ten years of litigation, I'm certain it is cheaper for Remington to just settle rather than continue. I haven't seen any details about the settlement but I'm betting it is a structured settlement of some sort. Perhaps JG Wentworth will get you your money so you can use it now! Will that be justice? Just what is justice? Is it retribution? Or is it punishment? Is the function of justice to return whatever it is you lost? Is it to make you whole again? Isn't Justice supposed to be fair and reasonable? Is 73 million dollars going to fulfill any of those conditions? I would have to say, no.

 In this case what they are seeking is emotional justice. Certainly, the events of that day were horrific, a tragedy. That can be said anytime anyone is injured or killed by a mentally deranged individual. It would be true no matter the device used to perform that act. It wasn't the fault of the gun or the manufacturer of that gun. The fault lies squarely on the person using the weapon. That's why I say what they are seeking is emotional justice. Emotional justice cannot be awarded by a court! You can't sue for that! Yes, you should hold the individual or individuals responsible for their actions, a punitive response. The punitive response may provide some level of comfort, or it may not. Will monetary compensation provide comfort? I don't believe it will. It may provide a means to be distracted for a while, it may provide a sense of satisfaction that punishment was handed out, but it will not heal emotional scars. No amount of money will replace what was lost on that day! 

 I'm not suggesting that these families are motivated by greed or trying to use the tragic loss of their loved ones for financial gain. I am suggesting that the attorneys involved in all of this are. They are promising these families what? That by suing Remington Arms that will somehow alter what people do with a weapon? Remember the weapon does nothing without a person using that weapon. The weapon is an inanimate object! They are promising a change in the second amendment. They are preying upon the emotions of those families, that's what they are doing. Nothing will change what has taken place, and nothing will change what potentially could take place. It's akin to suing God because of a flood or other natural disaster! The only difference is Remington Arms has money. 

 If I am allowed to now sue for emotional justice where does that end? You hurt my feelings; how much is that worth. You accidently hit my pet with your car. Do I sue you or the car manufacturer? I'm heartbroken and should receive emotional justice. The product did exactly what it was designed to do, whatever the product was. Doesn't make any difference whether it is a gun, a knife, a tank or a battleship. If the product is misused, that is the fault of the user, not the product. You may extract justice, revenge, retribution or retaliation against that person, but not against the product itself. 

 Is there such a thing as emotional justice? My answer would be yes. The thing is emotional justice can only be received through yourself, not from an outside source. Whether that source is religious belief or just a simple acceptance of truth, it must come from you. You can't sue for that.              

 

tomorrow's culture

 "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group" 

This is one definition of the word culture. I extracted it from Google and so felt I should put it in parentheses. When people refer to their culture, I believe this is what they have in mind. Mostly I think they are talking about their social group. It's assumed that we are Americans and share that common culture. That's the nation part. But I'm thinking about culture as an identity. A lot of identifying going on these days. A lot of cultural appropriation is closer to the truth. 

 Your culture is learned from your parents and peers. It isn't culture from a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago or the distant past, rather your culture springs from yesterday. You are responsible for tomorrow's culture! That is worth repeating, you are responsible for tomorrow's culture. Culture transforms every generation. It doesn't remain the same in every aspect. That change is what we call, progress. Progress is an improvement. It stands to reason in order to make progress, to get better, culture must do that as well. So, when one determines that the past culture was superior, you are advocating for a regression. To regress is a bad thing, that's what we are taught. 

 As we grow we begin to modify the culture. Sometimes we refer to that as fad and fashion. We develop our own style. Some will take a more radical approach to that, and others will be more subtle. We all reject some of the culture that we were taught. Whether you accept that teaching or not, you were taught it! Don't confuse the two. Each generation will embrace their own culture, and in time, most will long for the culture that was lost. That is when we begin the appropriation of a past that we really never knew. We say we are embracing our cultural heritage. But the truth is what we know of that heritage has been modified through the generations, only the finest parts remaining. The portions we ourselves modified being rejected altogether, forgotten and ignored. 

 My ancestors come from many walks of life. I have Swedish ancestors, they were steel makers, in the mountainous regions. I know little of that culture, only what I have read in history books. I have ancestors that were around the world whalers. I certainly know little about that culture. Other ancestors hail from portions of Great Britian, farmers, peasants, adventurers or immigrants, depending upon your view. What culture was that? I don't know. I do know about my parents, my grandparents and their culture, what the normal thing was in their time. The cultural norm is what we are taught! My only point being I can make no cultural claim to distant ancestors. I'm no Scandinavian steel maker, no whaler, no British subject, no immigrant, I am an America, from the cultural period following World War two. That is my cultural background, nothing more. 

  History repeats itself. It's a lesson we have all heard. I'd suggest that culture will repeat as well. I'd also suggest that America is in a period of regression. We have made great strides in culture over the last two hundred and forty-six years. Remember it took one hundred and fifty-seven years before we became America. There has been much cultural change, but we are regressing in an important area. That area is morality. The decline in morality will be the downfall of the nation. That was perhaps best stated by John Adams when he said our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. Note he separates the two, morality and religion. The two are not the same thing! Still, both are required for a Republic to survive. In fact, the United States was the very first constitutional republic in the world! Others have followed, but we were the first. A change in culture for certain at a time when Monarchs ruled the world. 

 If I am to claim a culture that is the one I select. The American culture. A Republic. " That government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" It is what I was taught, what I learned, what I adopted and preserved as my own. It is what I did my best to pass to my children and my grandchildren. I learned that from those that fought in World War Two and Korea. They fought to defend the world against the Nazi regime and the Imperial Japanese.  

 They returned to a nation of progress. There were many cultural changes during that period, the period of the baby boomers. Freedom and equality achieved through strife and struggle. The civil rights act of 1964 was landmark legislation in altering the culture of America. It was met with strong resistance in the southern states but eventually was passed. It was something I was barely aware of at the time. Why? I lived in the north and my culture didn't discriminate based on race, not that I was aware of. Yes, there was discrimination, no doubt, but mostly based on your social station. There were poor people and there were successful people. They came in all colors! You either were a person of means or you weren't. The cliche of the tracks was very real. It was a world of staying in your lane. That was the prevalent attitude. 

 That remained until the "hippies" came along and said there was no lane! Free love, peace and communal living. It was an experiment in culture. It was also a failure as soon even the hippies got tired of those that contributed, and those that did little to nothing. The lesson of socialism was learned. It was a lesson they had been taught by the previous generation but decided to ignore. Yeah working for the man was a real drag, but it's the only way to get the things you want. Nothing is free, it has to be earned. And so summer camp ended for the hippies sometime in 1969. 

 I was never a hippie. No, I pretty much clung to the culture of my parents. I mean, I was cool, but not that cool. Perhaps if my parents had been a bit wealthier it would have been different. They weren't in any position to buy me the "cool" clothes and trappings of the hippies. I was expected to get a job to buy the things I wanted. I wasn't given the freedom to let my hair grow long. There were rules! And a great deal of that had to do with my parents' station in life. They were the working class, not the upper middle class business owners. My home wasn't the Brady bunch or Father knows best. No, My Three Sons. No, we didn't go on family vacations, go out to dinner or have a maid. Dad didn't have a Den or a Study, he had a recliner. We fixed on own cars, repaired the house, and sometimes sewed patches on our clothes. We changed out of our school clothes when we got home. 

 All of that is the culture I grew up in. I heard tales of those in the past. I never heard my father making claims to being some hyphenated American of any kind. He wasn't a German-American, he was an American. We certainly weren't wearing lederhosen or listening to Oom pah music. My grandmother would tell us stories about being a little girl in Sweden. She didn't tell us she was Swedish though! She was as American as you could get in my eyes. We were all Americans. 

 That's the culture I grew up with and the culture I promote to this day. Most likely I always will. I am responsible, that's the bottom line in all of this. It's a moral obligation. I pray to my God for strength, and for moral courage. I do believe all men are created equal. I also believe you will reap what you sow. You are responsible for you. You are responsible for the culture of tomorrow. It is dependent upon what you allow today. Yesterdays' mistakes and missteps, the injustices of the past, cannot be changed. You just have to keep moving forward. You create what you want, drawing upon the lessons of the past. You alone are responsible for that. That's what morals are.   "a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience." 

a federal offense

  I listen to the news most mornings and have to say things get more ridiculous every day. This morning they are reporting that the Maryland state legislators are considering a bill to legalize marijuana. What that really means is the state would no longer prosecute people with that substance. Just like every other state in the union, marijuana will still remain a felony to possess. It being a substance listed on the Federal controlled dangerous substance list, it remains a federal crime regardless of any state laws. But what caught my attention about this proposal is the reasoning behind it. The primary reason was there are too many arrests for people with marijuana. Yes, the reason we should change the law (really ignore the law) is because people are breaking the law. They did go on to mention the health benefits of marijuana as another benefit. Yes, and the revenue the sale of that substance may produce would certainly be welcomed. Some of the revenue could be used to fund rehabilitation centers for drug addicts. Or it could be used to buy more needles and narcan to keep the druggies safe. Either way, it's a win-win. 

 Now I did a little reading about the health benefits of marijuana. Mostly it is used for pain management, for stress relief, and in juveniles with epilepsy. That some benefit can come from its' use is not disputed. It was pointed out that for pain management it only works on milder forms of pain, just minor aches and pains. You still need something a bit stronger for severe pain. So, I question the validity of that argument. We certainly have any number of products that can be used in place of pot for minor pain management. Stress relief? Well now, there are also a number of products that can be utilized for that as well, just not as "cool" to use. The problem with all of these things however is the same, a gateway to something stronger. It's human nature. Once we find a pathway to relief, we tend to continue down that path. After a while we always need just a little bit more, something with a bit more kick. 

 I did read where the CBD oil has benefits while not getting the person high. It is used to help with nausea after chemotherapy as an example. The oil is widely available. You can get a legal prescription for that product from your doctor. But what the legislators are talking about is legalizing marijuana to smoke. I fail to see how inhaling anything into your lungs can be a benefit. I inhaled untold number of Marlboro cigarettes over a thirty year period. Stress relief? Well maybe, but it sure wasn't any benefit to my lungs. The government does profit from the sale however, an estimated twenty billion in 2018 alone. And that's while the government encourages everyone to quit, imposes mandates and restrictions on when and where you can even use the product. Haven't heard of any legislation banning the sale of those products however, not one. Vaping introduces that all important nicotine but that became an epidemic with our youth! Strange, isn't it? 

 The bottom line is it will eventually be legalized, removed from the CDS list, or the law ignored by the states. A condition I still fail to completely understand. Not that the FBI is interested, or should be, but possessing marijuana is still a federal crime and you can still be prosecuted for that regardless of what the state says! Federal law always supersedes state law. Article V1 Paragraph two. As for me I don't believe it should be legalized for recreational use. Yes, people will still smoke it but that isn't a reason to legalize it. People will murder other people too. A government that feels justified in limiting alcohol and tobacco products based on health benefits has no business adding another product to the list. The government has declared addiction as a disease. Should that same government legalize the product that may lead to addiction? Yeah, not everyone that smokes pot will use something stronger, not everyone becomes a pot head, same as not everyone becomes an alcoholic or addicted to opioids. But a government telling me I should wear a mask over my face for two years, in the interest of public safety, certainly shouldn't be saying this is fine. The same government mandating the injection of a product into my body telling me I have no choice about that. 

 What I want is for the legislators to just come right out and say the truth. We want to legalize this product so we can tax it. We aren't really concerned if it provides any health benefits, we don't care about that. We don't want to be bothered arresting people for distributing or using that stuff. We have the ATF for that. After we legalize and tax that stuff we will actively prosecute anyone selling it without paying the tax! Just like alcohol and tobacco we will not allow that. That is a FEDERAL OFFENSE.               

Qualified?

 If you remain true to your ideals, true to the roots of your raising, at a certain age you discover, the normal thing isn't normal anymore. I have definitely reached that age. As I watch the shows and movies on television it becomes more evident every day. It is obvious in the language used and the social situations portrayed. To coin an old phrase. " We aren't in Kansas anymore." I'm certain that is the way it has been with every generation. At times there seems to be no normal at all! Abnormal is the new normal. 

 All of that has to be viewed in context however, I'm aware of that. Fashion, style, social behaviors, all change with each succeeding generation. I never grew that long hippie hair popular in the 60's but it was a normal thing to see. My father certainly didn't think it was normal. Some of my fashion choices he thought weren't normal. He even expressed some concern for my mental well being. Are you really going to wear that out of the house? And yes, even some of the moral choices I made came into question. It wasn't so much that Mom and Dad hadn't engaged in certain activities, they just didn't let that be known publicly. 

 I have reached that point where the norm isn't normal to me. It's upsetting and a source of aggravation at times. When people engage in abnormal behaviors and you are being told you have to accept that as normal, it's aggravating. The answer is, no it's not! It isn't normal to me, and I live in this world, my world, not your world. I see no reason to reject my sense of normality to suit you. You are the one struggling for acceptance, not me. I've already decided what is normal, what is right and what is wrong. My concern is the same as my parents. I'm just trying to show you the way. 

 I am somewhat confused here just lately. First it was the nomination of a Supreme court justice, now a head football coaching position. It seems like there are those wanting to establish a new norm. Color as qualification. The color of a person's skin must be factored into the decision making process. We are to assume, as the normal thing, prejudice in hiring, always, in every case and in every situation. Blacks for instance comprise roughly 13% of the total population. But, the narrative is they should hold 50% of the jobs because that would be equal. I'm not certain where that would leave the nearly 18% that are Latinos. If 13% should get 50% how much should 18% get? And where does that leave the 60% that say they are white? How are we to establish a new norm based on that? Abnormal numbers? It certainly seems that way. Well, I can tell you one thing that is normal, everyone wants to be equal, until they are. Another is this, you can please some of the people all of the time, some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time. That's normal.  

password protected

 Heard on the radio. 90% of couples today say you should not share the password for your phone with your significant other. What I hear: don't trust your significant other. I was surprised to hear that though and question the validity of that survey. I question most surveys to be honest about it. These days I believe most surveys are to gain an advantage in some fashion. The bias is built right in. But the idea that I shouldn't share my phone password never entered my mind.

 I admit I am a bit older, a bit old fashioned you might say, although I prefer traditionalist. In my world I don't keep secrets from my significant others. Well, alright that does depend upon just how significant they are but all of that is another discussion altogether. Assuming your significant other is truly important, truly of significance in your life, you shouldn't have any secrets. Or, to be more precise, you shouldn't be worried that they will discover your secrets. Yes, there is a difference between the two. We all have secrets of some type and for various reasons. 

 Now with me, my wallet and my wife's purse are the only things password protected. I will not go into her purse without her saying so and she doesn't go into my wallet without mine. It's a mutual respect for each other's privacy. I could put a phone number in there and not have to think she would see it. I trust her implicitly to not go through my wallet. It could be argued I feel that why simply because I know there is nothing in there to be concerned about. There's truth in that as well. When the bank is empty you aren't worried about being robbed. But my point is simply it's a matter of trust. Applying an actual lock (password) of some type you are unwilling to share is a show of mistrust in my opinion. 

 I hear about all these couple getting into trouble over their phones and social media. Their partner gains access and finds all sorts of unsavory things. I hear the woman saying how their man left his phone unlocked and they went through it. They have suspicions and feel justified in doing so. What that is, is a lack of respect for the other person. If my wife told me her phone was locked and she wouldn't tell me the password that would raise suspicion, what are you hiding? I think she would feel the same way should I decide to do that, and I wouldn't fault her for that. 

 I heard that on the radio and can't help but think, if that is true, we are in trouble. Relationship has to be based in trust. That's all we have in this world really, trust in our fellow man. No one can do this alone, no man is an Island, John Donne gets the credit for that observation. In that poem he points out the loss of others is indeed our personal loss. If you can't trust, you lose trust. Without trust love cannot long survive, for it must be watered frequently with that most precious of commodities, trust. Is your trust password protected?    

the common man

  The removal of statues is an attempt to discredit the heroes of the past. Whatever they were memorialized for isn't so important as the sentiment. At one point and time they were all "heroes." Heroes being a term we use frequently these days. Remember when schoolteachers were heroes? Remember when nurses were heroes? Both are being fired today for failure to comply. They were heroes during the early stages of the battle, not so much today. Parents questioning school boards about masking mandates are being labeled domestic terrorists! Some are being surveilled by the FBI! Let that sink in. Is that a legitimate function of government? And today attention is being directed to the truckers. You remember those heroes of the highways that deliver all our goods, the ones we were told to be thankful for? Now they are being watched carefully for any sign of collusion. Social media sites have already been locked down, no mention of solidarity with truckers allowed. There is fear that they might just interfere with, gasp, the Superbowl! OMG, the superbowl is in jeopardy.

 Who are the new heroes? Dr. Faucci? He is losing some favor, although I would call it popularity more than favor, at least with the politicians. He has pretty much served his purpose as far as that goes. It does create a void however, this new President isn't exactly soaring in popularity. It's a bit of a problem marketing Joe Biden as a competent and capable leader. Not much going his way is there? Relaxing covid policies isn't going to do much either. That's another issue. The jig is up, as the saying goes. Still the threat of war, well not really war, we're just sending supplies and a few troops, a familiar plan to anyone paying attention since 1945, can be a boost to the economy. But we have to be careful, can't get anyone killed and no innocent bystanders injured or inconvenienced. Of course, the word has gone out from the Biden administration. Americans in Ukraine better leave now, we won't be coming to get you! Yes, that's what the President said! You are on your own! We are using the planes to fly illegals around the country for relocation, no time to save you. There will be no helicopters on rooftops in Kiev. Forget about it.

 To help with the domestic unrest the government has decided upon a new program. The harm reduction plan. Now I know a lot of folks are saying the program will provide free crack pipes. That isn't exactly true, partly false, but it is mentioned in the mission statement. He is a portion of that statement.  "One way to mitigate the harm that can often come to addicts and abusers is to offer safe ways to use drug s, including clean needles, safe syringe exchanges, fentanyl test kits, opioid reversal drugs and pipes used to take drugs like cocaine." That is where the crack pipe thing comes in. The actual policy doesn't say they will, just that it is one way to mitigate the harm. In short, the new policy is, they are going to do drugs anyway, let's make it safe to do so. The same thinking as, my children will drink alcohol and do drugs anyway, I should do that with them, that way I know they will be safe. It's practically a duty to do so! I wouldn't want to let them down. Yes, some cities have already provided these things, along with safe spaces to take the drugs, not arresting those with the drugs and all of that but now we should do it on a national level! Hey the rural kids need to be safe taking drugs too! That is equality! You know they are going to do it. That's why abortion is legal, girls are going to get pregnant and sometimes they don't practice safe sex so the only way to mitigate that is to simply kill the baby. Safety first.

 Yesterday's heroes are today's villains. That is always reflected in cultural shifts. And that's what we are seeing today, a shift in the cultural norms. In the past these shifts have been for the better, for the most part. Yes, there was injustice in the past no one is denying that. If there hadn't been we wouldn't have had to make changes! And many changes have occurred since the founding of this nation. We have been moving ever forward toward that mission statement that all men should live free. But with freedom comes responsibility. And that is part of the mission being neglected today. The lack of accountability for individual action is becoming a cancer to America. There was a time when the real heroes where the common man, indeed the "minute" man. Ready at a moment's notice to defend the land. I feel we are approaching that time once again. Hopefully with a convention of the states in accordance with article five. It was the common man that won our freedom, it will be the common man that preserves it. Not heroes, just the common man.    

Natural

 Does morality depend upon religion? The answer is no, although I would suggest the majority of people, if asked, would say otherwise. Morality, morals are a collection of values. That is to say, the things we value as a society regarding behaviors. Honesty, integrity, loyalty, trust, empathy and tolerance are among those values. You certainly don't need to be religious to have any of those qualities. But religion, the belief that one will receive a final judgement, is the impetus to comply. 

 Today you will hear many scholars saying the Constitution and other founding documents were not based on Christian principles. I'd have to use a phrase we are hearing a lot these days, partly true. Some of the founding fathers declared themselves Deists. What does that mean? Simply that they believed in a divine power higher than themselves that they declined to name. So, Christians, followers of Christ, is not one hundred percent accurate. Partly true. That they all believed in a higher power is not disputed. None made claim to being an agnostic or an atheist. 

 The Constitution and other founding documents were written to define a moral code, a value system. We hold these "truths" to be self-evident. All men are created equal, a moral statement, not a religious one. The right to life, a moral statement, not a religious one. It is only when religion interferes with morality that troubles begin. When religion is used as the source of political power, morality declines. That has been proven throughout history. 

 Religion, belief, whatever term you wish to apply is an emotional thing. Emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides. The reason for that is emotions tend to guide us the way we want to go, not necessarily the moral way to go. Hence, the term sin was invented to define that. It's sinful to not obey the religious doctrine. The religious doctrine being a political motivation, whether it is individually or as a whole. Each of us are individual political entities. The goal of all politics is the exercise of power. Religious doctrines often require the surrender of that power. The church, that is to say the governing body of a religion, will wield ultimate authority over religious values as they relate to moral values. Take the Catholic church as an example. That church places the power of absolution with the priests. That power stems from the Bible, that is the "law" book. In the past one could simply pay the priests to obtain absolution. The Pope has affirmed that a Priest can grant absolution for abortion. So, in this instance the Pope has ruled over morality. The ruling that birth control is wrong still stands, however. The moral ruling there in opposition to the moral decision to abort a child. 

 I mention of all that as an example of politics. The exercise of power. When you can exercise emotional control over the people, you have gained control of the people. Religion can be that tool. Today it's the FDA exercising that emotional control. Our government agency exercising emotional control over the population. The government attempting to legislate moral choices. The government has decided abortion as a moral choice, is an acceptable moral choice. No judgement there! The government has decided it is immoral for me to refuse a vaccination, and there will be judgement passed. All of that can be transposed to every facet in life. The government deciding upon charity. Who will receive this charity, who is eligible, and who is not? Government attempting to replace religion. Yes, and that is the exact reason those founding father insisted upon the separation of church and state.

 Those founding fathers held to an ideal. The ideal is that every man conduct himself in a moral fashion, despite any religious instruction or influence. Perhaps that is why those that declare themselves deists make that statement. They are declaring they believe a higher power than themselves exists, and they must conduct themselves according to "nature" and natures laws" to receive the ultimate reward. Jefferson most famously wrote of these natural laws. By rejecting any association with an established denomination of religious belief, they excuse themselves from adhering to the "rules" established by the political leaders of those denominations. Makes little difference the title you apply. King, Priest, President, Grand Poo Pah, whatever. Those controlling the emotional response of the people, control the people. That's true, even when it is accomplished by force, by the rejection of the moral action altogether. And that is why these words were written:

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, 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 the separation."

   

    

like that

 I heard about proposed legislation that would prohibit members of Congress from trading in stocks. The reason is the obvious one, insider information. I haven't seen the entire bill so I'm not sure how it would apply to family members. Nancy Pelosi's husband is a big time trader. Her comment was she would allow the legislation to go to the floor but it is really a matter of confidence. Yes, Nancy is saying, you just have to trust those politicians to not use their insider information for monetary gain. Yes, trust us! Personally, I don't care what political affiliation a congressperson has when it comes to this, they will use that information. Call me a skeptic but I don't believe anyone would just ignore it. I think the best you could hope for is that they don't invest in something when that insider information shows it wouldn't be profitable. 

 The thing here is, every position in life has its' perks. That's just a part of the whole deal. It may be nothing more than I have worked here longer than you so I can get away with something, to having insider information. It's like being rich and poor, people are both. Yeah, we all want to be rich, but we aren't. I realize the Democrats would attempt to legislate that, redistribute the wealth they call it, while the Republicans oppose that strategy. In this case it is a bipartisan proposal. I know surprising, isn't it? I expect it is those members that haven't made their millions in the market. Or it is just more posturing before the mid-terms. You have to remain aware of that. You have to understand that politicians spend 70% of their time campaigning for reelection and 30% legislating. Yes, the most important thing to those people is the same as you and I, keeping their job. The longer you are there, the better the perks become. When I was in the service we had a saying, "he's got it like that." That described those situations when "he" could get away with this or that and you couldn't. Seniority is the official designation. You know, "you got it like that." 

 Now this isn't the first time such legislation has been proposed. Over ten years ago Congress passed the stock act. That was supposed to prevent insider trading. You hear about people getting in trouble for that every now and again. Martha Stewart probably being the most famous case. The feds proved she had insider information from one source but not from another. It's complicated, I read some stuff about it and I guess she deserved what she got. But the stock act doesn't directly apply to members of Congress, just rules about insider trading. If you are going to prohibit members of Congress from investing/trading in the market you are basically saying, we don't trust you. Of course, that wouldn't prevent them from passing along some information to others. What are you going to do? You can't place a member of congress in complete isolation, unable to communicate with anyone else. I'd say, you have to trust them, even when you don't! Yup, they got it like that. Just remember you elected them. It's a catch 22. 

chastised

 Facebook is winning. I realized that yesterday when I was going to post a comment and then withdrew that comment. The reason? I decided I didn't want to be put in jail. Yeah I know, it's a sign of courage to stand up for what you believe. Still, I haven't forgotten the old adage, discretion is the better part of valor. I did feel a bit defeated but was willing to "comply." It's a choice I made. Risk and reward. I just didn't want to lose my ability to post. I realized my desire for entertainment overrode my desire to post a wise crack! My comment was going to be just that, sarcastic! Sarcasm is a tool I employ a lot. You have to laugh at this stuff to keep from screaming. 

 I don't feel censored. That's not how I feel at all. I can still say whatever I want to say, just the manner of expression has to be different. Really not that much different from when I was a kid. You remember, back in the day, when you didn't use profanity and coarse language in polite company. We called that having respect for others. It's true that if the others were friends or close acquaintances, once a familiarity had been established, those words or phrases may come into play, but not in everyday conversation. So, in a way Facebook or Meta whatever it is being called today is attempting to legislate what was once was called, manners. Being polite, courteous and respectful were lessons taught in my youth. They were often reenforced, well, forcibly if you get my meaning. It wasn't feelings that were hurt!

 So Facebook won a round yesterday. I was aware of it as well. I chastised myself! Partly for failing to post what I originally thought, and partly for having the thought in the first place. It's a lesson learned many years ago. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And if you do, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. I wasn't willing. A lesson applied more than 65 years after having first learned it. What did you say? I don't remember what it was, but I didn't say it again! At least not to my father I didn't. Seems as though Facebook is implementing parental control. Guess I should be thanking Mark for watching out for me. Corporate caring. Yeah, let's go with that.    

ID

  Identify yourself. Looks to me like that is getting to be an issue. I did see where the IRS scrapped their plan to use facial recognition technology. The concern was privacy. There are those tech savvy people that can fool that system into thinking it is you. Fingerprints, retinal scanning and other technology is being employed more so every day. Covid ID cards are becoming the normal thing and mandatory in some areas. Naturally they are being faked and folks are making money off of that. Strange thing about that is, these vax cards aren't official identification cards, just show that the person whose name is on the card has received a vaccination. Except the name and the vaccination may both be fake! Big concern about things being fake these days, vax cards and the news top the list. Or should I say information. Misinformation is information that is wrong and possibly fake. Then again it might not be fake, but it's wrong to say it isn't fake. 

 I saw that decision on the news regarding the IRS changing their mind. It did get me thinking about ID. Are we heading to being chipped? It doesn't seem out of the question in the not too distant future. You know it wasn't that long ago when your "bona-fides" weren't much more than a piece of paper and your handshake. I'm from New York state and when I got my first driver's license it didn't require a picture on it. It wasn't a requirement until 1984! A drivers license was proof of identity, at least as far as buying cigarettes and beer went, or so I was told and "that's all I have to say about that." Having identification to vote however seems to be another issue altogether. Seems like it is the only thing that people are opposed to in that regard. Voter ID is voter suppression! Maybe we should just change the name of it, call it a License to vote, don't hear a lot of complaints about having to have a license. Haven't heard anyone claiming driver suppression. 

 But the issue it would seem is identity. On the one hand I can identify myself any way I want to, ignoring science, biology and common sense. Hey, a large portion of the population now calls Bruce, Caitlin. What about that ID card? Well, they have started to include other, non-binary, and I'd rather not say as choices. Only seems logical at some point I can just say, I'd rather not say when asked about my identity. Trust me, that's my check, my money, my car, my house or whatever. It's offensive that you are asking me to prove it! You can't refuse me either. On the other hand I need proof of identity. The problem is proving that the proof, is proof of the proof, being true. And the truth might change at any time. Remember that Olympic Decathalon champion on the Wheaties box? That was in 1976. Today he is wearing a dress and calls himself Caitlin. Would his Olympic credentials be valid today? That is to say, his identification papers. If they were presented to you today, would you believe them? Trust me, that's me, back when I was a man and competed in the Olympics. 

 The bottom line in all of this is simple enough to understand. No matter what devices, what strategy is used there are those that will cheat. There are those that will forge documents, create documents, and by-pass any security employed. So chipping, eye recognition, facial recognition, and all of that is not foolproof. Until we can decode your DNA almost instantly that will be the case. You can't change your DNA. Of course, then someone would just figure out a way to tie their DNA to your identity anyway. And what about twins, triplets or other multiples? There DNA would all be the same. Well, just have to take their word for it I guess.        

On the level

 I enjoy watching the Olympics, as I believe most folks do. I'm not concerned with any political implications and all that. It's just fun to watch people that are the best in the world doing what they do. As I watch I wonder how they got started in doing some of those things. I mean take Luge for instance. Sledding on steroids! But just where is there a luge track for beginners? And I heard some of the athletes talking about traveling the circuit, all over the globe to compete. I wonder who has the money and resources to do such a thing? I know they get sponsors, like the pro bowlers and others do, but how? I'm a professional snowboarder? How do you get that designation?

 You hear the athletes talking about dedication, training, sacrifice and all that. It would certainly take all of that and more to accomplish what they do. Most are pretty young; you'd have to be for your body to take that punishment. I wonder how you decide on that when you are just an adolescent. Are the parents responsible, the coaches, and talent scouts? I don't know. Many of these sports have no useful purpose afterwards. I mean being a professional ski jumper for instance, what do you do for a living after that? If you win some Olympic medals that has to be a plus, getting hired as a spokesperson or whatever. What about the ones that never get a medal, the ones that came in sixth and seventh. Skaters at least can work in ice shows like Disney but I'm a speed skater, what do I do? 

 These athletes are all to be admired, I certainly give them every credit they deserve. It's just that I wonder how you wind up doing that in the first place. A number of these sports require a great deal of money to even get started in, well unless, you own your own ski resort or mountain. I've been enjoying the Curling. Where is the closest curling facility to me? The stones weigh 42 lbs. apiece and you need five. That's at least 2500 dollars for refurbished ones. Where would you even buy one? Amazon probably has them. Yeah, I looked, they do. Well, I just wonder about all of that. I guess it just takes commitment on the part of the parents, those willing to sponsor the individual, and a great deal of skill. I do believe you have to be born with the talent, whatever the sport may be. It's a God given gift. There are so many factors involved that luck surely must play a role as well. A lot of very hard work and luck. It's that way in life too. 

 I have a nephew that is into cornhole. It's a fun game to play and I have tried it. Mostly it seems like an excuse to get together and drink some beer, a good pastime. The cornhole, not the beer drinking though. But, hey, they are getting some exercise I suppose. Now, my nephew travels around to various tournaments. Apparently, like all the other sports, there are professional cornholers! My nephew has spoken of those people. He says you don't stand much of a chance against them. He has placed in several tournaments, winning trophies and cash prizes.

 Now cornhole is a game I can see anyone being able to get into. The equipment necessary is pretty basic and can be homemade. It can be played indoors or out. You don't have to be physically superior to anyone else. I would think age has little to do with it. As I said I've tried it and it is amusing. Amusing, a pastime, but I don't seem to have a natural talent for it. I'm not pro-level that much is certain. I'm not even at the amateur level. I'm at the spectator level. Same as ski jumping or luge.