what was left behind

 As one that has an interest in family and the origins of my ancestors, I am still left somewhat bewildered by those claiming a heritage. The bewilderment comes from attempting to rectify the past with the present. To rectify can mean to make right, change or convert. Thing is, you can't change the past in any way. That which has been expended is gone. You can't rectify that and make it into anything else. In brief, it is what it was. Our ancestors are who they were, not who we wish they had been. You are not entitled to anything beyond whatever legacy was bequeathed to you. Your legacy is whatever money or property that was left to you. It is not to be confused with history. History is ever changing, moment by moment, year by year, century by century. You can't inherit history; you have to create that personally.

 In years past we used to say that someone was riding the coattails of another. They were profiting off the success of another. It generally implied the person was unable to be successful on their own. success by association. It was also viewed as taking the easy way out. It implied dependence. It also was accompanied by a certain degree of disdain. But somewhere along the way that has changed. Now there is this claim to heritage that somehow entitles the claimant to special considerations or benefit. That is what I find confusing. Your heritage is what you inherit. And whom do you inherit that from? Your parents are the short answer, notwithstanding all the other possible scenarios. That applies to every aspect of your life including your culture. You cannot claim a distant culture as your own. That is to say, a culture from a hundred years ago or more. Culture changes over time, over history just like you. The truth is the culture of my youth, a time period in the 1960's no longer exists. I am a product of that culture, a "boomer" as I am often called. In the years following WW2 being of German ancestry wasn't a good thing. Being off Japanese ancestry wasn't a good thing. Being a foreigner in general wasn't a good thing. Claiming heritage from the descendants of the Mayflower was a very good thing! Today being a descendant of anyone in 1619 Virginia would be a very bad thing. 

 How did it change from riding the coattails of another, to demanding benefit for the distant past? It's basically the same action. Now I should benefit from what my ancestors didn't have. I didn't receive a legacy. For that reason, I should be given one today. Placing the blame for that lack of legacy not on my ancestors, but on someone else, is justification. I'm certain my ancestors would have given me a legacy if they had one! But they were denied that by others. It's the others' descendants that are at fault here and should provide that legacy. I had German ancestors in this country that were discriminated against. I'm certain they would have been far more successful if they hadn't been. I think I may have inherited a fortune! I should receive that today. Heck the Romans invaded Germanic lands and seized control for hundreds of years. I'm thinking the Italians (Romans) today should pay reparations to me for that injustice. 

 The bottom line for me is a simple one, however. I'm an American. I was born in America, raised by Americans, and live in the American culture. My American cultural experience is different from other Americans however, each is unique. But the fact that I am an American, and that they are American doesn't change because of that. You don't get to claim a culture. You have to be born into it. You can certainly learn about other cultures, study them, and perhaps even adopt some of their traditions, art or customs but you can't claim their achievements or misfortunes as your own. They are not!

 I could never know what it is like to be a German in the later part of the nineth century. I can read about it but that's about it. My German ancestor came to this country in 1856. He came because of political upheaval in Germany at that time. A dreamer? Hardly, just willing to take a calculated risk to improve his condition. His children became Americans. Over the years they adapted and adopted the traditions, customs, and art of this nation. The objective was to be successful. Yes, he came of his own free will. I understand that. He also had the free will to go back to where he came from. His children had that free will too. Why they choose not to I can't say, only speculate. I know that I have never had the desire to go to Germany to live, to claim any heritage there. I'm not German! I'm an American and as such have sought my legacy in America. It's something you have to do for yourself. It isn't something you can simply claim. You can't claim what isn't yours. Maybe it is what you wish to have, maybe you even feel like you should have had that, but you didn't, and you don't. That doesn't mean you can't. The best thing to do is work with what you have. Remember heritage or legacy is something you leave behind for the next generation, it really isn't something you inherit! I'm thinking that's where the confusion lies. 

 

but it is

  If clothes make the man do uniforms make the professional? That was something I thought when learning my grandsons' fiancé would be graduating nursing school. To my surprise I learned that she would not be getting a cap, rather a pin. I looked it up and found that "capping" went out of fashion in the 1980's. I read that some nursing programs still have a cap but the majority have switched to pinning only. Nurses today are generally wearing scrubs, in a variety of colors and prints, without any head covering at all. A far cry from the nurses I remember when I was younger. I do remember when the nurses all wore white and a cap. Yes, some wore a pantsuit while other still wore a more traditional dress, but they were immediately identifiable as a nurse. Today they could be mistaken easily enough for the cleaning lady or a surgeon. They might even be the receptionist on break! Many of those wear scrubs for reasons I have yet to understand. Do they get called into surgery at a moment's notice when they aren't confirming appointments? Well, it's all just a bit too casual for me. That's my feeling.

 I remember when the service station attendant wore a sort of uniform. You could trust your car to the man who wore the star. I had a milkman and a postman, and both wore a uniform. I wasn't aware that a great deal of those uniforms were supplied to the employees as a sort of advertisement and incentive. It did advertise the business and the employee didn't have to buy work clothes, a kind of win/win situation. About the only ones I see now are the fast-food places doing that. I suspect that is to their benefit more than the employee. A method to control the manner of dress without being direct about it and so avoiding conflict. I remember policemen wearing slacks with a pressed shirt and tie and of course their hats. Today it's more likely fatigues and a ball cap, combat ready!  

 Uniformity used to be something that was strived for, expected even, but today it is all about individual style. The employee dictating the standards more often than not. Comfort and fashion being of primary importance these days. It has even extended to the military to a certain degree. When I was in the military you didn't leave the base in your working uniform. You were either in the dress uniform or civilian attire. But that has been relaxed and you see servicemen and women in their fatigues at Walmart. Is it professional? Well, I don't know but I know I don't like it. 

 In the story of clothes make the man the message was, people will form opinions about you based on the way you dress. It's true, they will indeed. In more modern times that was expressed as, dress for success. The thinking is the same, look the part you wish to play. But beyond that is the phycological aspect of that. We do feel a bit different when dressed for the part. That was the reason behind getting dressed for certain events. We dressed in a certain fashion to match that event. Going to church? You dressed for church. You didn't go dressed like it was a party, you went in a rather solemn way. Weddings, funerals, meetings of all types, required a certain degree of dress and decorum. That isn't the way it is today. Today we have decided that it doesn't matter how you dress. That's the progressive way of thinking. If you don't like the way I'm dressed that is your problem and I shouldn't be concerned with that at all. You should change to suit me. No pun intended. It's a different attitude altogether. And an attitude I would suggest that invites confrontation rather conformity. That's what uniforms are all about, conformity, in case you hadn't realized that. 

 It's what is expected. Your manner of dress is a signal to others. It's why parents would say, you ain't going out of the house looking like that! It was a reflection on them. In the movies when people are involved in a joint endeavor, say exploring space, they all wear uniforms. That's supposed to be in the future. Why are they wearing uniforms? Are they not progressive enough to understand that uniforms are restricting the rights and individuality of the people? Gang members wear certain colors and have distinctive ways of dressing. Not exactly uniform but identifiable. We do expect a certain appearance from certain professionals. The feeling is if they look the part, they probably will play the part. It's what imposters do. If I don a three piece suit and carry an attaché case, what am I? A professional. A professional what? You don't know, but you think I'm a pro. That's the expectation.

 Realistically I think we have to come to understand that uniforms display a certain professional appearance. They are still an identifier. But do we need to be all professional all the time? Yes, we just don't need to show that all the time. It is our actions that make us professionals, not the uniforms. Indeed, uniforms should be designed to be compatible with whatever the profession is. The traditional nurse's uniform was a display of cleanliness. That is what is projected. Doctors wore white coats for the same reason, unless they were actually engaged in some procedures requiring a higher degree of sanitation. The nurse's caps were identifiers to those that knew the code. Each cap meant something, the degree of education and the school attended. The pin, I would imagine serves that purpose today. Doctors still post their degrees on the wall of their office. Maybe it is a legal requirement, I don't know about that. 

 I do think it is amusing that we have uniforms for our recreational activities. Now they aren't anything official that is true, but they exist. We have attire for every activity. It started with those old grey sweats. Remember when everyone wore them when engaged in a sport or exercise? Then they became colorful outfits, they became tights and leg warmers. Soon we had outfits to fit the activity. Everything from mountain climbing to bicycle riding. If you're "serious" about the sport, you have the proper uniform. These uniforms are designed specifically for the activity. But do the uniforms make the athlete? Well, makes you feel like one anyway. Makes anyone looking at you think you may be one. It projects an appearance. A certain degree of expectation is fostered as well. Should I have a question about baseball I'll ask the baseball player. I can identify him by the uniform. Yeah, it's all about looks isn't it. But it shouldn't be. But it is. 

influenced

 After writing yesterday's posting I continued to think about the subject of woolgathering. My thoughts began to coalesce a bit more regarding what it is I was trying to say. Now my wife doesn't remember hearing that old expression and so I was explaining it to her. Today it means doing nothing other than daydreaming. The dictionary says it is aimless thought or absentmindedness. As with a lot of things the meaning has changed over time. Remember when gay meant being happy? But as I explained that to her, I was also trying to explain what my thoughts actually were. I didn't feel like I had done so in yesterday's post. At least I feel like I could have done a better job at that. So I thought to try it again.

 I was thinking about when I was a kid and how I would get bored. This was in the time before video games, cable television, and all of that. I had books and toys. That was about the extent of it. Didn't have a lot of either one of those when it came right down to it. I'm not saying I was deprived just that I wasn't "spoiled" as the saying goes. I always had the outdoors and my imagination. It was during that time that I practiced using whatever "wool" I had gathered. The "wool" had been gathered from the books I read, the games I played, and whatever interaction I had with other people. There wasn't a lot of organized activities back then. It was more of a "pick up" thing back then with whatever players happened to be around. So, I did wind up bored a lot. I was woolgathering!

 I'm thinking that is part of the problem today. The kids are constantly entertained in some fashion. Depending upon their age it can be anything from video games to social media. Apparently, a good deal of their teenage time is spent on Tic-Tok! What little I've heard about that reminds me of the playground during recess. In elementary school we were often challenged to do this or that. Whatever the challenge was it almost always led to a bad result. I'm thinking that it why we didn't do that stupid stuff later on, we had learned. We had gathered enough wool to knit a cap of common sense! Yeah, we were still learning but at least we had a start. After answering some stupid challenge, we were given time to think about it. Our parents called it being grounded. You were now restricted to your books and your imagination. For me it was the worst punishment, just sit there and think about it! I was forced to gather wool. 

 I believe even though it was meant as a punishment it was essential to my growth. I believe it is essential to the growth of everyone. When you are forced to just sit and think, to contemplate your choice of action, you do learn to see things from a new perspective. Influences. That is something you hear a great deal about these days. We are all being influenced by the Russians and by social media. I hear they have professional "influencers" these days. They can be found on social media and from what I read they are also bloggers and vloggers. I write a blog almost daily, but my intent isn't to influence anyone. I'm just sharing my wool. I say that because it is that wool that creates wisdom. Wisdom isn't learned, wisdom is created. Wisdom isn't taught, it is shared. As with any gift, the acceptance of that gift is up to the recipient. 

 I think the problem today is that children aren't left alone enough. They are constantly entertained, if not being directly supervised. Today the surgeon general is saying that social media should be restricted no children under the age of 12. His reasoning? They are being influenced. I don't agree with a lot the surgeon general has to say but he is right about that. It isn't a good thing to allow children unrestricted access to the content of the web. When I was a child, I was sent out of the room when the adults were talking! There was nothing cute about a small child cursing or using foul language. That stuff was a bad influence! Adult themes stayed with the adults. Kids today aren't given time to think! They are under a constant barrage of information and influences. 

 Today, whenever a child makes a mistake there is a rush to diagnosis the problem. They may have ADD. It's what my parents and teachers called not paying attention and won't sit still. There was a cure for that. Mostly it was a stern reprimand and warning, that was usually sufficient. In extreme cases, other measures may be employed. I don't recall any child being drugged when I was little but that is a common practice these days. Counselors and therapists are deployed to tell the kids they are screwed up. It isn't their fault though, it's an illness or disease. For that reason, everyone around you should adapt and accept you. That wasn't how it was in years past. No, you were expected to change your ways. You either changed your ways or faced the consequences. You were afforded the opportunity to think about that. Woolgathering? My feeling is it is a necessary part of childhood. The importance of allowing children to gather wool cannot be understated. It's true even when they don't know that's what they are doing, or the purpose of that. 

 The true importance of woolgathering is in learning about yourself. When you are the only one there, the only influence being your own good judgement and common sense. It is during that time you learn to accept yourself. Until you learn how to do that you will never learn to accept others. There will always be a problem. Others can't teach you that. It something you have to learn for yourself, by yourself. It is the basis of belief. Many kids today just don't have that base at all. They were never given the time. "Time spent alone is time spent with your spirit." ( A,B,Reichart )  

"Never underestimate the power of dreams and the influence of the human spirit. We are all the same in this notion: The potential for greatness lives within each of us." Wilma Rudolph

woolgathering

  Have you ever heard the term woolgathering? It's an old-fashioned saying my grandmother would use. When I was just a little guy walking about aimlessly or just staring off into space that's what she told me I was doing. My mother would say to me, what are you doing? Grandma Bennett would say, leave him be, he's just woolgathering. It's something I find myself doing ever more frequently these days. I think that is solely because I have the time to do so. Television, social media or a hobby doesn't occupy my time as much as it used to. As a result, I have the time to gather that wool. I read where the term has been around since the 16th century. Originally it is thought that woolgathering was exactly that. Small children were sent out to the fields and forests to gather wool that had been snagged on brushes and thorny plants. Wherever the sheep grazed or roamed wool could be gathered. It took little thought, just wandering about picking it off the bushes. It seemed to others later on that it was a waste of time, busy work as we might say, to keep the children busy. That's when the expression began to talk on new meaning. more like what it means today. Although, I don't think you hear it used very often today.

 I find myself woolgathering often. A great deal of the time I write down the thoughts I find on a notepad next to my computer. That's the source of a good number of blogs. It's obvious at times where the wool was gathered. If it about current events I gathered that from the news or social media. At other times I gather my wool from unfamiliar places, little corners in my mind or memory. When I was little, gathering that wool, I was learning. I believe Grandmother Bennett knew that. It was time spent just thinking, placing things in their proper order. You did learn to pay attention even when you seemed to be in another place altogether. Still, it served a purpose. You do need time to just sit and think. That's something that is missing today, especially with the young people. It's all entertainment, all the time today. Today when the time for woolgathering arrives, we call it being bored. Yes, I said that when I was a kid too. I'm bored, it's boring, there is nothing to do. My thought is that is exactly why those children were sent out to gather wool in the first place. That'll keep them busy, it will also teach patience, observational skills and completing a task. Now I find myself gathering the wool I had collected all those years ago. Sometimes it is called wisdom. 

 You could say wisdom comes from gathering wool. Some folks have a lot more of that than others. But even when you have a great quantity of wool, it isn't very useful unless it is woven together. And that, that has to accomplished by the one that gathered the wool. How closely were they paying attention? That's the observational part in gathering that wool. Learning where to look. Staring at the sky you won't find much wool! Walking in the open field will yield little as well. No, taking the easiest way isn't going to be very productive. Following the crowd leaves little for you to gather. Gathering wool is best done alone with your eyes wide open. You can't be in a hurry! The wool gathered today will be used in the future when you have a sufficient quantity to make something useful. For some that wool becomes wisdom, and for others just a warm blanket in old age. It all depends upon how you use it I suppose. What you weave with it. "It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" (Epicuris) It's not the wool that was gathered but rather, what you do with it. (Ben Reichart)  

good enough?

  As I saw an article about Abrham Lincoln, a supposed telling of unknown facts by his son, I couldn't help but think, why can't they just leave things alone? Now I admit I didn't click on that article as I recognized it as click bait and have enough spam already. But from reading just the headlines it was clear there was some dark secrets to be exposed. That's the bait anyway. As I said I didn't open the article and so don't know exactly what was being written. But the thing is this, why disparage a memory of a great man? Even their headline called him Honest Abe in an obviously sarcastic way. This seems to be the trend lately though, exposing historical figures as ordinary people with faults just like you and me. Yes, I know that they were. I don't harbor any illusions about them as being perfect human beings.   They are like you and I in that they are products of their environments. A product of the times. 

It's human nature to want to find fault in others. I have no explanation for that but believe it to be true. We all want to be right and prove others wrong at almost every opportunity. Post anything on social media that is wrong, and you will quickly be corrected. I've had that happen on more than one occasion. I know, I'm as surprised as you are, but I'm wrong sometimes. Sometimes I'm wrong even when Google says otherwise. But seriously we do look for faults in others. Maybe it is because we want to hide faults we know to exist in ourselves. I'll leave that analysis to the philosophers and head doctors to figure out. Still, I'm left to wonder why we feel the need to attack historical figures these days. Those historical figures serve as examples, as models to emulate. You may call them heroes; a term being sorely abused these days. I don't think of them as heroes, more like just plain good people. All their faults notwithstanding, they were great individuals that made some kind of contribution to humanity. Whatever faults they had were negated by their contribution. 

 I find it confusing when we are attacking history and historical figures while humanizing cartoon characters! The examples of that are many. The latest one I heard about being the M&M's characters. Apparently, some folks were upset by what the characters were wearing and there supposed sexual orientation. They're cartoon characters for god's sake. And then we have this whole genre of superheroes! There are discussions about these fictional characters and their politics. Again, they are fictional characters! These fictional characters are being held up as an example to emulate, being all inclusive and empathetic to all of humanity! Meanwhile actual people from history are being exposed as frauds! Honest Abe wasn't so honest after all, and the founding fathers were terrible human beings. The white race is solely responsible for every injustice that has been committed since we came out of Africa! Surely none of those folks could be an example to anyone! No heroes there. History needs to be rewritten.

 The thing about all of this is that I believe we all need heroes. We all need someone to look up to, to hold above reproach. That is the function of our Gods and the function of our heroes. Today many are busy dismissing god, a supreme being or creator. There is a scientific explanation for everything. As long as you can show the faults in others, you are equal to them. It's that simple really. Expose them as human and they lose their power. Superheroes are the same way, even Superman has Kryptonite. That's the reason we have those big discussions about fictional characters. They have to be shown as human too, although they aren't in any way real. At least we haven't seen any. But maybe there are aliens among us. If they are, they aren't human. 

 I've heard it said often, it's no worse than. Take smoking pot as an example, it's no worse than drinking alcohol. That's the reasoning some apply for legalizing that. I've always countered with, shouldn't the goal be to be better than? That's the idea behind our childhood heroes. Those people were always better than most, not just no worse than. The star player on the team is better. Those that got a hundred on the test were better than those that didn't. Going home to tell mom and dad I was no worse than wasn't acceptable. No, the goal was always to better than. Now it seems the objective isn't to be better than, but to make the others worse than. Worse than yourself? Yeah, that's the idea behind that. If everyone is doing it, it can't be wrong. If others have always done that, it can't be wrong. If I compare your choices to mine, that is wrong. We call that being judgmental. We shouldn't judge. Everybody is doing it. 

 The removal of heroes and gods. That's what I see happening. Man deciding, he has risen above myth and superstition. The concept of God and a final reckoning something to be avoided. Belief in a higher power than yourself can be limiting and inconvenient. Gods and heroes are better than. Man is settling for, no worse than. Makes it a little easier in this world, no doubt about that. No need to strive for excellence, just don't be worse than. It all speaks to humility. It takes humility to recognize when others are better than. You should be humble before your God and your heroes. The absence of either, or both, leads to that state we call, good enough. Is that what we are going to settle for? It's good enough. 

getting real

 The economy is doing so great right now we need a war! That's my thinking anyway. I realize I'm no political analyst, no great scholar. I'm just a guy that will be 70 years old in a few months that has paid attention to history. I'm not a history teacher either! Still, I can see the writing on the wall and read it plainly enough. The fastest way to stimulate the economy is to engage in war. You can call it a conflict, a police action, supporting your allies or whatever else you like, but the important part is engaging in the war. In times of war the president and the congress can make decisions, engage in political machinations that otherwise would be challenged. War is good for making money! Always has been and always will be.

 It's a delicate balance though these days. Used to be the arms and munitions used to fight conflicts were somewhat limited in their destructive power. We are all aware of how drastically that changed with the atomic age. Those two bombs effectively ended WW2 no doubt about that. The moral implications can and will be debated forever but the results cannot. That elusive situation we called the cold war centered around all of that. Eventually treaties were signed, and "limited" amounts were allowed. Yeah, you can only have a few bombs and missiles capable of destroying the earth! Well because we all know that everyone plays by the rules during wartime. How many nations today have that capability? The official count is nine. At least two of them have decided already that they aren't going to play by the rules. Those are the ones Biden is trying his best to start a war with. But it's just going to be a "little" war with "little" nuclear weapons. Nonetheless it will be good for business. Give this great economy or ours a jump start so to speak. Could even lead to a new world order if the cards are played correctly. 

 We, the United States of America, are currently in debt to the tune of 7.4 trillion dollars to foreign nations. That's a heck of a monthly payment to make. Combine that with the 39.2 Billion dollars we give away each year in foreign aid and the amount left for our own budget sure is taking a hit. If you can't pay up might as well blew them up. China is the second largest holder of debt in the world. We owe the Chinese well over a Trillion! This administration allowed a Chinese spy balloon to track all the way across the country. After it had completed its' mission, it was shot down. I don't think the Chinese cared one iota about that. When the American people had their say the administration began shooting down hobby balloons! And now the President is traveling around stirring the pot. You have to take a close look at all of that and wonder what the heck is going on? It was wrong to say the China virus has caused worldwide health issues, couldn't say that. Trump was vilified for that. Biden on the other hand publicly stated the Russians are committing crimes against humanity! If those aren't fighting words, I don't know what would!

 It's a very dangerous game to be playing. I hear talk of a limited nuclear exchange. That's what the experts believe may happen. I say if you are in a fight how much are you going to limit yourself? Who is willing to use the bigger stick? We used the biggest stick of all on two Japanese cities. Those sticks are tiny compared to what we have today. We can also deliver those weapons much more swiftly, more accurately, and almost without detection. But so can they. Who is going to limit themselves? The days of Armies fighting each other on the ground are over! Those battles only occur for political/economic reasons. No one is actually trying to defeat the other, to take their nation or gain control. Take Ukraine as an example. Does anyone believe that Russia could be stopped if they really wanted to simply invade and take control? The deal there is simple enough to understand. You don't want to cut off your nose to spite your face. But if Russia really wanted to, they could have simply bombed the Ukrainians into submission. As I said, the problem there being blowing up the very thing you want. 

 So now Biden is setting up NATO against the Russians and the Chinese. And just what nation supports NATO with the largest monetary help? What nations supplies NATO with more manpower, more hardware, and more everything than all the others? So just who is challenging Russia and China? Think about that. Would you say we are in a position of strength? Is our leadership intimidating to those foreign powers? Take a good hard look at what America is today and think about that. Rainbow flags, fidget spinners, and being passive isn't going to accomplish much on the world stage. A nation divided, a nation deeply in debt being led by what? A left-wing agenda of appeasement! Wake up people, the party is over and it's about to get real! Very real. 

friendship

 With old friends, it's personal. That's something that I have become increasingly aware of as the years roll by. That awareness began, I believe, when I first joined Facebook. That was when I began reconnecting with those old friends from my youth. At first it was just anyone from my youth, those I had attended school with. I felt a kinship with the names, if not the people, on a personal level. We shared common memories of events, but not always of each other, or other people. But it was community that was being shared, nothing too personal about that. It is an identity, but it isn't necessarily who you are either. That's where the personal part comes into the picture. And I have discovered there are many levels to that as well. As time goes on and interaction continues you find out who that person is. At least, we form our own opinion on that based on our own beliefs. It all depends upon how personal you get. 

 I'm certain this is different for each of us as we make our way through the world. For those that remain in their hometown, stay and interact with those childhood friends, it certainly has to be different. They would still remain a part of their lives on some level. Still have access on a first-person basis. But for others, like me, that moved away all that was left behind. Those names and faces become mostly memories. I did stay in touch with my closest friends from that period in my life, an occasional phone call or card. Holidays observed or support and condolences offered when required. Still, much transpired in our lives that the others were unaware of. 

 It's the personal things that make a friendship special. That's what causes a bond to endure. When we are young, in those "formative" years as the experts like to say, we are choosing the medium, the thoughts and feelings that form the strongest bonds. We search for a commonalty. It's as simple as the birds of a feather analogy. That's the basis for the "cliques" in the schoolhouse. Later in life it is the basis for many fraternal organizations, charities and groups. Sharing a common goal or mindset. Today there is much talk of right and left, that is the dividing line. The truth is it has always been so. It is those core beliefs that either draw people together or place a wedge between them. Some would call them values. I say it is the value of believing. With our closest friends we believe in them. We can count of them to be there for us whenever it is necessary. That is why we can go for years, sometimes decades without losing that belief, that faith. 

 We often say we need to catch up. We want to catch up with old friends, to hear the news and the gossip. We have that desire to be a part of the past. There are questions you will not ask, situations not shared that will have influenced everyone. With your closest friends you get to choose what to share, and it will go unchallenged. That is the value of an old friendship. The desire to preserve what was, is a strong one. That desire outweighs all else. Questions, doubts, or even direct evidence contrary to what has been said, is insignificant in comparison. The bond cannot be broken by any of that. Not if the value remains the same. we don't really want to catch up, we want to go back. 

 As far as Facebook goes, it's nothing personal. That is something I have come to understand. I do enjoy meeting people from the past, those that I knew if only by name or reputation, and those that I was closer too as well. I enjoy hearing about their lives, like characters in a storybook. With those folks I only know what is written and they are the author. I'm aware that is true for me as well. Guess you could use the old adage, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time." (Abraham Lincoln) I've witnessed that on Facebook more than once over the last decade or so. I'm thinking you can't really get personal unless it is in person. I also think that is what is causing a great deal of the unrest we are experiencing today. Too many choices! People are forming personal opinions based on impersonal information. Just because information is impersonal doesn't make it the truth. With old friends it is personal. Not your person though, theirs. That is the maturity of a lasting friendship. That remains unchanged by time or distance. 

"It takes a long time to grow an old friend." (John Leonard) It takes long time to appreciate that as well. "To remain as excited as when you first received the gift, that is friendship." (A.B. Reichart) 

did I say that?

Saw where Don Lemon has agreed to attend formal training in order to regain his job. I'm certain he is completely conciliatory and sincere in his desire to improve himself, become a better man. He regrets saying that Nikki is past her prime. But he did reference Google as a source of that information. It's scientific fact! That conclusion was based on studies conducted by trained scientists. In this case however we are told to not trust the science, in fact, if you believe in that science you need to be trained otherwise. It's all a very confusing message. 

 Now this statement by Don Lemon came during a discussion about the competency of Presidents. Lemon feeling that all candidates for president should undergo cognitive testing when they reach the age of 75. Apparently, he thought that didn't apply to women as Google said their prime occurs somewhere between their twenties and fifties. He didn't come right out and say Nikki should be tested, just that she wasn't in her prime. Immediately many thought he was referring to something physical. That was the thought, wasn't it? Is she in her prime childbearing years? Although I have heard no one say that directly we all know that was what was inferred. I'm no advocate of Don Lemon but is that what he implied? No, I don't think it was. He was implying Nikki's mental faculties were diminished. She is 51 after all. According to the science, not in her prime. 

 All of that brought to mind the famous or infamous Jimmy 'the greek" incident. Back in 1988 CBS fired the Greek for his controversial remarks about the athletes. He was never given the opportunity to apologize, attend any training, or make amends in any way whatsoever. Now Jimmy was also just quoting what he felt was scientific evidence for his remarks. For those of you that may not know he was talking about "selective breeding." In a totally misguided and ignorant fashion he made the point that many blacks had been "bred" to be more muscular, faster, stronger and in general more athletic than the white guys. He was comparing blacks to race horses! Well, he was a professional gambler and odds maker and took everything into account when making his bets. He was asked to resign, refused to do so and was immediately fired. It was the complete end to his career. Near the end of his life, he did return to the racetrack. But he was relatively obscure by then and had been ostracized from the betting community.

 All of this just goes to show you have to watch what you're saying. It's nothing new. Every enlightened person has been called a revolutionary and vice-versa. It all comes down to who is allowed to say what. That is the landscape we have to navigate. It has become increasingly difficult in recent years. Words, terms, even descriptions are under scrutiny. The words and phrases used on Platinum selling Rap albums are acceptable in one demographic but would get another jailed! Remember we are debating pronouns these days! Bruce Jenner is a man, has always been a man and will always be a man. Yet, I'm supposed to use his preferred pronoun and noun! He says he is Caitlin and a she. If I were a person of note, which I certainly aren't, and said that publicly, my career would most certainly be affected in a negative way. I need to comply or be denied! As I said I'm no advocate of Don Lemon, but he is being attacked for what was inferred, not what he actually said. That's a dangerous precedent, a dangerous standard indeed. But then again, nothing new. It's what I said, but it isn't what I meant. That standard has been applied to our founding documents as well. It's what it says, but it isn't what it means. Guess we should all attend training, you know, to learn what not to say. 

 All that being said, fire Don Lemon! He should be removed and never heard from again. How offensive was that remark? Fire the bum. 

                                                                           

                                                                         

                                               

                                                          Did I say that?  

                                                                                

spreading misinformation

 Happy Presidents Day. Today we are celebrating George Washingtons birthday. Yes, that is the official deal. Many people think Presidents' Day was created in 1968 by the uniform holiday act. It was, but it wasn't. When congress was talking about moving the holidays around to create three-day weekends the name of the holiday was much debated. You see Washingtons birthday was an official federal holiday. Lincolns birthday was not, and in fact, still isn't an official federal holiday. After all the arguments had been made it was decided that the holiday would remain Washingtons birthday. If you get an official listing of federal holidays, you will not see Presidents Day on that. It will say, Washingtons birthday observed. The bill was passed in 1968 and went into effect in 1971. 

 So how did it come to be called presidents day? Well, that was what was proposed initially as a replacement for Washingtons birthday. Washingtons birthday is the 22nd of February. It is celebrated on the third Monday in February today because of that act. Lincolns birthday is on the 12th of February but was never celebrated nationally. Some wanted to combine the two dates and call it Presidents' Day. But that would have required making Lincolns' birthday a federal holiday as well, and possibly the other 33, not counting LBJ who was in office at the time. That was rejected by congress. But some started calling it that anyway. Want to hazard a guess who was behind that? Retailers. Yes, it was retailers drumming up business. We could have sales! In fact, retailers have been behind the implementing of a good number of holidays, not to mention three-day weekends. It's what's best for business.  

 Today many believe the day is to commemorate all the presidents. That isn't the official reason or intent. But it is all inclusive and doesn't slight anyone. Your favorite president is included. We celebrate Presidents' Day even though there is no such holiday! And what's amazing is no one seems to point that out. Misinformation? Never mind about the facts, just call it whatever you like. As long as it sells, it's all good. It's that way with a lot of stuff these days. Just call it something else and it's fine. 

 "Gender dysphoria used to be called “gender identity disorder.” But the mismatch between body and internal sense of gender is not a mental illness. Instead, what needs to be addressed are the stress, anxiety, and depression that go along with it. The condition has also been called “transsexualism.” (from Google) But this term is outdated." Yeah, just change the name and deal with the stress, anxiety, and depression caused by that mental illness. Then you don't know you have a problem. Call it Presidents' Day instead of Washingtons birthday, then no one is excluded or offended. Never mind what Congress calls the day. It really doesn't matter what they say, it's what you "buy" that matters. 

concerning

  Are you alarmed? You should be. The vice president and secretary of state have both publicly accused Russia of crimes against humanity. If you want to start a war, I can think of no better way to begin. Imagine if Trump had said anything close to that. Remember he was the one that was going to start a war. But it sure looks like Biden is determined to start something with the Chinese and the Russians! Well, I guess when you owe them both, and have discovered you can't repay them, the best thing to do is get mad at them. Pick a fight. I've known a few people that pulled the same trick with me. You know saying another nation has committed crimes against humanity is a very serious business. It goes beyond rhetoric. 

 You should be deeply concerned when the commander in chief orders objects shot out of the skies without knowing what they are. Perhaps even more concerning than that are the generals agreeing to that! I haven't heard a single one voicing any dissent or concern about that. With the one object that was the size of a small automobile slowly drifting over nuclear sites and infrastructure it was left to cross the entire nation. But a balloon that is at best six foot long and launched by a hobby group is blown out of the sky with a sidewinder missile! And not just one balloon either. You might say Joe is getting a bit trigger happy. And now he has dispatched his VP to call the Russians criminals. 

 But I suppose you have to find some way to justify all the spending on Ukraine. After all Joe owes them too for taking such good care of his son Hunter. They employed him when no one else would. Gave him a great salary in a field he had no experience or training in at all. But he did have access to the Big Guy so it was worth the investment. Those damn Russians. If they aren't interfering in our elections, they are committing crimes against humanity. Boris and Natasha would be proud! Where is Rocky and Bullwinkle when you need them? I'm thinking they got canceled by the left as too violent, too prejudiced and discriminatory.

 It does make one wonder. Is all of this a set-up for a coup? Not by the Republicans but a democratic strategy? Remove trigger happy Joe and his war mongering VP and Secretary of State. Do that in response to Russian aggression, to appease them and establish a new order. Hey, you don't want the Republicans to impeach him, or cause any major changes, you need to control the chaos. The old guard isn't done yet. Nancy and her ilk, Schiff and that crowd, are upset about their loss of control. Things are beginning to unravel a bit. A bigger distraction is going to be required. Mask wearing, vaccines, boosters, and new strains aren't doing the trick anymore. Even allowing illegals to stream across the border and distributing drugs isn't a big enough distraction. Maybe a small nuclear exchange will do the trick. A deal could be worked out, you know, in everyone's best interest. 

 Of course, I'm just a right-wing conspiracy guy. All of this is just my imagination. Secret servers in the basement, Russian dossiers, Hunters dealings with foreign powers, veiled references to the big guy and spy balloons. There was no election fraud, no manipulating the numbers in the middle of the night. George Soros and his voting machines are totally legit. And all those suicides connected to the Clintons, nothing suspicious about any of them. The FBI raiding Mar a Largo at three in the morning, nothing politically motivated about that. Biden having classified documents stored in his garage next to his Corvette however was explained away. They were simply misplaced. Could have happened to any vice president or senator. 

 Yeah, there's nothing to be concerned about. Just stay focused on the cow flatulence and the newest strain of coronavirus. Celebrate black history, gay pride and gender studies. Focus on the great divide in our own nation. The goal there is to establish separate but equal government. Discrimination only goes one way you know! And that way is whatever direction you personally want to go. The facts be damned. Don't get distracted by any of that. If you want a nation to unite, at least for a little while, you need a universal enemy. The Russians will do. You should be concerned. 

proactive

  I was thinking how proactive my parents were before we even used the term. My mom was especially so. I wasn't aware of it when I was younger but gradually grew to understand it. In the summer months, or during any vacation days from school, shortly after dad left for work, I would be accused of having done something! Could be most any infraction of the rules in my house. Maybe I just looked at mom in the wrong way. Anyway, I would hear these words, just wait until your father gets home! What that meant was you're guilty and dad is the executioner. Your only hope was that mom would forget about that infraction during the day. The best way to ensure that was to be on your very best behavior. The very best way was to get out of sight, stay out of sight and don't ask for anything. That seemed to work every time. Then one day I realized just what the deal was. It was just mom being proactive, saving me from myself. Thanks mom.

 My parents were proactive in other ways too. I was told you're not going out of the house looking like that! It was a kindness, saving me from ridicule or teasing. I wasn't being denied the freedom to express myself, I was being instructed. They didn't care what the other kids were wearing, I wasn't the other kids! It was a reassurance of parentage. There was no doubt in my mind who my parents were, ever. They were the same kids that might be jumping off a bridge. Would you do that too? Of course, you wouldn't, you knew better than that. My parents were concerned with global warming. Close that door we're not heating the neighborhood! They were concerned with global hunger. There were kids in Africa that would be happy to have that cauliflower! I should eat it for them. I needed to do my part. Food should never be wasted. They worried about my eyesight. Get back from that television, you'll go blind sitting that close.

 I was taught that the fewer things you have, the more you appreciated what you did have. That was also taught by allowing you to work for the things you wanted. It wasn't that they didn't want you to have those things, it was that they were worried about spoiling you. I can tell you it was something my parents never allowed happen to me. It was confusing at first because I was also being told, don't be fresh! That was cleared up later when I was told about getting seasoned. That meant doing the same job over and over again. That's how you got good at something, by repetition. If you repeated the same mistake however you did hear, what till your father gets home. So, things went full circle. The lesson was clear. Do what is right before you even need to! That's being proactive. Good parents are proactive like that. 

 

comeuppance

 Yesterday I saw a flower in bloom and took a picture of it with my phone. That's pretty modern don't you think? I mean I didn't even have to think about it just pulled my phone out, and using my fingers to zoom in, the snapshot was taken. Being synced to my computer it was automatically available when I went online. Anxious to share this little bit of sunshine with my Facebook friends I posted that picture to my wall. Problem was, I misidentified the flower. Yup, called it a crocus when in fact it was a daffodil. I was corrected almost immediately. That wasn't so bad, but my wife has to rub it in saying, you were wrong, now admit to it! So, I did post a sentence or two on that post admitting to my error. I admit to googling for further clarification on the topic. Turns out a crocus and a daffodil are in the "genus" in the scientific world. So, I did explain to my wife that although we were talking about a Ford and Chevy, they were both in the automotive group, so technically I wasn't wrong. That explanation didn't fly, as the saying goes, and I had to admit once again, I was wrong.

 Later on, I felt like a politician. I was searching for a way to be right, to justify my answer, even though I know the answer is the wrong one. It just comes down to being told, you're wrong. The desire to somehow be right is a strong one. It's something we all attempt to do. In my defense it was a flower! I wasn't wrong about that. In the comments that followed my misidentifying that particular genus of flower, narcissus to be scientifically correct, someone said they are also called Johnny jump-ups. I hadn't heard that term in many years. Funny how that is. Somewhere in my memory I have heard those flowers called jump ups. I did enjoy reading all the comments left on that post. In fact, I wish there were more posts like that. It was, all in all, a pleasant interaction among people. Perhaps it was because there was a clear point, a definite line, between what was right and wrong. I was wrong and everyone was scrambling to correct my mistake. It's great to know that my "peeps" have my back. From now on I will remember what a daffodil looks like as compared to a crocus. 

 In retrospect I wish I had just posted a picture of a spring onion. I definitely know one of those when I see it. I remember teaching my granddaughter about them. I showed her how to pull them up and the onion bulb attached to the stem. I told her how you could eat them and use them for seasoning a stew or make a soup with them. Or I could have posted a picture of a dandelion. I know those as well. I had a pet rabbit that loved to eat those things, the grandkids would pick them for him. I also can identify a Lady Slipper in the wild, Cypripedium Reginae, as I picked those for my mother back in the day. I only saw pink ones but have read they come in various colors. But I didn't. I posted a picture of a daffodil and called it a crocus. I can't blame it on old age, an excuse I sometimes use, I was simply wrong. Thing is, I had convinced myself that it was a crocus. Somewhere along the line I had received misinformation! Thankfully the government is now taking steps to eliminate that from happening. In the meantime, it's good to know I can trust my friends to correct me. I'll try to do the same should you require that service. I've got your back. Thanks guys. You could say I got my due comeuppance. Get it? comeuppance. 

 

old advice

 “When another blames you or hates you, or people voice similar criticisms, go to their souls, penetrate inside and see what sort of people they are. You will realize that there is no need to be racked with anxiety that they should hold any particular opinion about you.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

My old friend Marcus had a way of saying things. I'm amused because it is the same thing, I have heard my mother tell me. I'm not certain if mom ever read meditations but I'm thinking it is unlikely. Ah but the wisdom of the ages has been passed down in many ways. I think of it this way, there is little than can be said that hasn't been said before. Marcus is telling you to dismiss what the others are saying about you, they are not on your level. Mom would say, you're better than that. It isn't that you are a better person, but rather you treat others better than they deserve. Their opinion of you is not important in the big scheme of things, your actions are.

There are times when you are disappointed. It happens when you discover someone isn't who they portray themselves to be. When you see the true person, penetrate the facade they have erected, and see their soul, and it turns dark. It isn't anger at being deceived, it is disappointment. That may be followed with pity. I've experienced this several times in my lifetime and it always leaves me a bit sad. I admit I'm sadder for my loss than I am for the person that deceived me. The longer the deception lasted the deeper the sorrow. As Marcus advised there is no need to be racked with anxiety. I've got that part down pat! I feel zero anxiety about any of that.

I'm never disappointed when someone disagrees with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm disappointed when we can't agree on the facts. Facts and opinions are really quite different. Opinions based on facts become the truth. An occurrence that is sometimes quite uncomfortable. Facts based on an opinion are not facts, nor will they ever become fact. They remain simply, an opinion. The truth is often not what we want to hear or believe. Doesn't matter, the truth remains. Winston Churchill said, "there is no such thing as public opinion, there is only published opinion." I think he hit the nail on the head with that one. Never in the history of the world has that been more widespread than today. This information highway is bringing that to the masses. It has taken it to another level entirely but today you don't even have to read! Just turn on that computer and the spoken word is out there.

Each new medium of spreading information has ended up perverting its' purpose. Now the government itself is growing concerned with misinformation. What sort of term is that anyway? Seems a bit ambiguous to me. It doesn't mean the information is wrong just that it isn't the information the government would rather you didn't hear. And who exactly is the arbiter of the truth? Is that the function of government? You would you elect to decide upon the truth?

The founding fathers were all too aware of that, that it was government that would ultimately rule on the truth. Remember they also knew that the people is the government! Yes, we the people are the government. So, what qualities do we the people need to govern? The primary quality is virtue. Madison knew that; Jefferson and Adams knew it also. It is virtue in the people that will make the country strong. George Washington in his farewell address said these words: “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” I'd suggest that is what Marcus Aurelius was thinking about when he said look into their souls. To see what sort of people they are. Are they virtuous and moral? If not, do not be concerned with their opinion of you.

nonsense

 This morning's nonsense on the news is the surgeon general saying there should be an age limit on social media. He would like to establish a threshold at 13 years old. You would have to be 13 to be on social media. Now first off that is the job of the parent, not the government. The parent has to purchase the devices, well, because we've all heard about child poverty, and the parents have to pay for that internet access. And just how you would go about enforcing any such law? Is the government going to monitor all social media platforms looking for those that are cheating? If the government wants to prosecute people for lying about their age on social media, they don't have to wait for a law! Shocking I know, but not everyone is being truthful about that. As a side note their profile pics aren't either!

 This is the same government that says children as young as five should receive sex education. They should be allowed to make life changing decisions regarding their gender identity. Another part of the government is saying a child's brain isn't fully developed until they are 25. For that reason, they should be exempt from prosecution as it relates to crimes. The Democrats want to lower the voting age to 16 why? Because those young people are so informed and intelligent, they should be allowed to participate in government. They aren't being influenced by social media. 

 Now age restrictions aren't anything new. We all know about them as they relate to alcohol, tobacco, seeing certain movies and gambling. Why are all those things restricted to those over 18, 21 or in some cases 25? The reason is control. Those items have to be purchased from someone. The person selling the product is to be held accountable for that. The moral or religious values are not being enforced just the legal aspect of the sale. And we all know kids have been getting those things forever anyway it's just a little more difficult and the cost is a little higher. But how are you going to control access to social media? Who will be accountable for that? The social media outlet? How are they supposed to verify your age? Will documents need to be provided to establish your identity? It is being said that having to produce an ID to vote is discriminating and unconstitutional. But having to produce ID for Facebook will not? Certainly, seems like a vehicle to collect additional data to me. Data is valuable stuff to various marketers and such. 

 Now what happens to someone underage if they are caught purchasing those items not allowed? Seriously, what happens to them? The short answer is, not much. The justice system doesn't prosecute them. The justice system goes after the seller, not the buyer. So, it would have to follow that whoever provided the devices and access to social media would be held accountable for a minor using that. Are the parents to be prosecuted? The surgeon general isn't saying the kids shouldn't have the devices just that they shouldn't be allowed on social media. Everything else available on the internet is just fine, I guess. Nothing to be found there that would influence a young mind. I know I have googled the most innocent of things and the results returned where shocking! Fact is there isn't much you can type on there that will not return something relating to sex, sales or social activism. 

 What punishment would the parents receive? How do you penalize bad parenting? A lot of that going on without any interference from the government right now. What is the government supposed to do? Will the government then confiscate all devices and ban their homes from receiving internet? Oh, and you can't go to any establishment with free wi-fi either! No McDonalds or libraries for you. What would be the point in making a law that is totally unenforceable? The surgeon general should issue recommendations but that is all. Nothing wrong with informing parents that studies have shown social media can be harmful to young children, so can the jungle gym and see-saw. As far as I know neither of those are illegal although not found very often these days. But to attempt to make a law restricting access to social media? You can't. The barn door is wide open, in fact, it is off its' hinges altogether. That is just talking nonsense! 

 

credible?

 Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? The lesson was do not seek undo attention. On the surface it seemed like he was just telling what he believed to be the case. He was taken seriously. But over time it was shown that was not the case. The people around him became skeptical of his claims. Eventually he wasn't believed at all. It was a story told to all the kids when I was growing up. It was a bit of psychology. You didn't go making up stories to gain attention. Maintaining your credibility was important. It was a lesson learned. Being credible fostered respect from others, they could trust you. 

 I was thinking about that as I listened to the news. How many stories are there of balloons these days? It has been mentioned several times they may be of alien origin. Sorry but you are now beginning to stretch your credibility. At first it was the Chinese. Now they are saying, they don't know. Others are saying that it is only just now that we have noticed these things. If the government doesn't know, my question is why are you saying anything at all? Why are we reporting speculation? Like a number of other things these days the name has been changed. Now they are calling these things, Unidentified Ariel Phenomenon. They're UAF's. Still unidentified but now flying and a phenomenon. Guessing they are not sure if it an object or not but admitting that they can see it. Progress. For years the government has denied this phenomenon even existed. Well guess it is better than Chicken Little, remember him? The sky is falling. It was a tale of misinformation. 

 But back to being credible. It has become a big issue today with our government. You can't trust the government is a common response. How has that come about? I'd say when the government started responding to every boy crying wolf and listening to chicken little the path was set. That has spread to the general population like a cancer. You can't govern on feelings! Nor can you lead a happy and productive life simply on your feelings. You have to accept the facts. At the same time, you shouldn't go around spreading false information, speculating, and presenting that as a fact. How many believe what the Surgeon General has to say today? And with this pandemic it wasn't even the surgeon general, it was a Dr. Fauci. Beyond the medical community who had ever heard of him? And then he presented conflicting statement regarding masks, vaccines and the whole situation. He lost all credibility with the public in general. Those in government began calling those doubting Dr. Fauci deniers, conspiracy theorists and ignorant. We were supposed to believe everything as presented without question. But all credibility was lost. 

 Whether intentional or not, an environment of doubt has been fostered. No, that's not right, it has been promoted. When government reenforces what is known to be untrue, how can we be expected to believe anything? The most glaring example of that is all this gender identity stuff. People can certainly feel anyway they like, they may even feel that way without liking it, but there are two genders. It's a simple biological fact. Trust the science. If a job or other opportunity was presented as for a white American only, that would be prejudicial. If that same job or opportunity is reserved for a black person, it's a program! 

 The thing is it all comes down to gaining attention. That's what the little boy that cried wolf wanted. In the end he wasn't believed or taken seriously. It was his undoing. This is exactly where we are headed in this country today. You can see that reflected in crime statistics. Those criminals aren't taking our justice system very seriously, are they? You have to say no. At the same time, you have the justice system saying they need to reform! Yes, and the criminals love that! I'm certain they will all vote for that as a matter of fact. All they need is the vote and we are working on giving that back. The list of "things" that will gain you attention is ever increasing. The old advice, "get over it" no longer applies. Now "it" should adapt to you, "it" should get over you. It is by acknowledging all these cries for help that we are weakening our resolve. We are on the road to total dependence. 

 What defense do we have against Unidentified Ariel Phenomenon? We have to trust the government to protect us. But they say they don't know what to do, or where these balloons are coming from. My thinking is this: if aliens wanted to spy on us, they wouldn't be using a balloon. I think their tech just might be a bit more advanced than that. So, who is creating this unrest? What's the purpose? I don't know but I'm not worried about an alien invasion. My thinking is this, it's probably none of my business. I'm not listening to chicken little or the boy crying wolf. I'm trusting in my own common sense. I'm not trusting the news outlets, twitter or Facebook. 

you know

  Maryland is installing a new administration on the state level. We have a new governor, and he has made his choices for a cabinet, etc. Today they are holding hearings for his pick for administrator of the juvenile justice system. Now I'm sure not many of us ordinary citizens have ever paid much attention to that. But in today's digital age, social media and media coverage all that has changed. I don't think the people are really taking an interest in that but simply responding to the news reports. I have to admit I fall into that category. I have never done a lot of research into the candidates the governor choices for his various programs and such. It appears to me the news is designed more to incite than to inform. I get it, that's what get the ratings, the viewership. People love to watch a train wreck, hear about outrageous behaviors and drama. Now this candidate for leading the juvenile justice system has been quoted as saying, he doesn't think anyone under the age of 21 should be charged with a crime. His reasoning being a child's brain isn't fully developed until they are 25. That's the science! We are supposed to trust that science. The long and short of it is that if they commit a crime, it isn't their fault! Anything they do should be expunged from the record when they reach 25. Well, they really shouldn't have a record at all is what this candidate is saying, the one the governor himself chose. Yes, it is a democratic administration.

 We all know that juvenile crime is on the rise throughout the country. We all know the gangs employ these kids for the very reason the penalties are less severe. It's easier to convince a juvenile that doing so is cool and that they will get street cred. Their brains aren't fully developed. Well, the science may say that, but it isn't what I heard growing up. No, I heard, you're old enough to know better! And that is at the crux of the matter. How old do you have to be to know right from wrong? If our brain isn't fully developed until we are 25, why do we enlist military members as early as age 17? Should we be arming those kids? We allow kids to vote at 18 with undeveloped brains? James Monroe was 18 and Alexander Hamilton 21 when they were involved with composing the Constitution! And that was well over two hundred and forty years ago! Where their brains developed? 

 If we hope to curb juvenile crime you have to begin with accountability. You have to hold those kids fully accountable for their actions. I hesitate to place a number on what age you know better. I understand that everyone develops at a different pace. But I do believe if children are held accountable in some fashion they will "learn" at a faster pace. Let's not forget that children learn at an early age how to manipulate their parents, siblings and others. Yeah, they know. It's something we laugh about today but was very real when I was growing. The threat of corporeal punishment implied by these words; I'll give you something to cry about! I learned early on that honey got more flies than vinegar. I stood a much higher chance of getting what I wanted by being the sweetest kid I could. Any challenge to authority was quickly squashed! There was no discussion, there was the rule. Sentences prefaced with, I don't care what so and so is doing where common. And of course, the ever-popular admonishment, you know better. The worst part about that was, you did know better. 

 This candidate to lead the juvenile justice system would remove all accountability for their action when they reach 25. Now he does say they should be "corrected" but not incarcerated. They need to be treated with compassion and understanding. And no matter what they did it shouldn't follow them their whole lives. Now we're not talking about stealing a candy bar, this guy is talking about crimes like murder! All crimes. Rape, extortion, assault, possession of a firearm and a host of other crimes just erased as though they never happened. The punishment would be to be placed in school to receive a higher education, have counselors assigned to you, and given special privileges. That is the consequence of doing crime in this new system. Can't afford to go to college? Just rob someone on the street and get caught. Problem solved. You can get your degree completely free of charge and have no record when you reach 25. No mention of that allowed. I'm certain no one would take advantage of this progressive system to gain an advantage. No, they wouldn't do that. If they do it will be because, they didn't know better, they were only 24.  

Just waiting

 Waiting on luck or fate? It seems to be what a good many of us are doing in this world. We are the everyday people, the unnamed masses, the status quo. We go to work, raise our families, participate in social activities and charities. We do what we feel are the right things, the decent things and wait. We aren't the ones "out there" attempting to sell ourselves to the world. We are not convinced we have any special talents or abilities. You won't see us on the news, on viral videos or the subject of discussions. We are just waiting on luck or, is it fate? It's my thinking that the terms are interchangeable. 

 Fate awaits us all. There is no escaping that, no changing that at all. That is something I believe wholeheartedly. Que Sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. That being the case, luck is what remains. Are you fated to be lucky? Well now that's another point of discussion isn't it. Does fate control all things? Yeah, you have to say it does. The thing is what controls fate? That is where religion enters the picture, or superstition. For some folks they are the same thing. As for me I believe you have to have something to believe in, something you can trust. How you define that is up to you, it's an individual thing. I think depending upon the strength of your convictions that may be a singular thing or require an assembly of like-minded folks.

 The important thing to understand is that we decide what to do with fate or luck! That is the part of free will that often escapes detection. We tend to blame bad luck for bad choices. Sometimes we blame good luck for our bad choices as well. As for fate we can't control that, all we can do is accept it. That doesn't mean we surrender to it though, just that we accept what it is. Our fate may be to change our circumstance, to alter our course, to make a difference. If we do nothing and things change, we call that luck. If we act and things change, we take credit for that. We don't call that luck. If we do something and it doesn't go the way we had anticipated, we often say it was just bad luck. Funny how that works isn't it? Is it fate when we are successful? 

 I'm thinking that none of that matters. I think we are all waiting on luck or fate. Some of choose to wait passively, while other take a more aggressive approach. Is it ego? Ego is Latin for I. If you believe you can change fate, change your luck, change your circumstance, ego has to be involved. It is only the degree of trust we place in ourselves, in our own ego that determines the approach we take. The most difficult person to convince should always be yourself! Others will call that self-confidence while others will simply say you are arrogant. Still others will say you lack self-confidence. It all concerns what Freud talked about with the Id, Ego, and your Super-ego. I haven't read a great deal of his theories or thoughts but I believe there are only two, right and wrong, good and bad. I do know he said the Id is your basic desires and that's as good a word as any for that and the ego is conciousness. He said that the super-ego is concerned with morality. I would eliminate that super-ego as a seperate state and just say your ego is in conflict with reality. Reality is your basic desires. It's different for every one of us. 

 But I'm not a trained pschologist. I find it amusing that we say that in the first place, trained. Trained implies you haven't given the subject/action much thought, you were simply trained to respond in a cerain fashion. Your master decided upon the action to be taken. When it comes to how people think I really don't believe you can define any of that. I'm also amused that had I chosen to attend a University and attain letters the words I write would carry more weight. I'm amused because I don't thinkyou can teach this stuff. Guess that's why they are trained. LOL. But I did enjoy the comic strip the Wizard of Id. Even as a kid I understood that humor. At leasst it made you think about it. 

                                                                

consequences

 Vice. It's a topic I often address. Yes, I am familiar with it. I'm not trying to say I'm not. Listen I spent twenty years in the Navy, you learn about vice. Couple that with a simple fact, I'm a normal human being subject to temptation, and you have experience. But the thing about vice is we all know we shouldn't be doing whatever it is that we are doing. It is what makes it exciting, at the same time making the normal person a bit nervous. We are all aware of the possibility of punishment for engaging in this vice. The punishment may be civil penalties or from a higher power. Still, we want that immediate satisfaction. We figure we can always make amends later on for our indiscretions. We are willing to take the risk for the reward. And what is the reward of vice? Money and pleasure. They are the goals when engaging in vice. 

 Vice concerns our morals. If it is immoral, it's vice. You could say a great number of our civil laws define what vice is. That's why it is illegal in the first place. You could argue the action isn't hurting anyone else, and that argument is often used, but the action is still illegal. Why, because it is immoral. In years past gambling was considered immoral. In 1869 Nevada allowed card playing and roulette wheels. Las Vegas wasn't called sin city without reason. By the 1940' and 1950's a number of states allowed betting on horses and low stakes charity games. In 1964 New Hampshire established the first state lottery. 1978 saw New Jersey open its' first casino. 1985 an interstate lottery was established and by 1996 25 states and three territories had casinos. Today 44 states have lotteries. Only eight states do not. Interestingly enough Nevada is one the states that does not have a lottery. I think the reason is obvious enough, don't want to hurt the casino business. Alabama doesn't have a lottery either. Their reasoning is based on religious principles, it's immoral.

 All of this was brought to mind again this morning as I was listening to the television. Maryland recently legalized sports betting and it is being heavily promoted. You can't go very long without seeing some ad about Fan Duel, Ceasars or MGM sports book. Being of a certain age I can't believe I'm hearing about sports books and booking on the television. Well, I used to hear that years ago after they arrested some gangsters for engaging in that activity. But today the gangsters are making records and the government running the books, times sure have changed. I remember when having a punch card was kept kinda secret! So was the name of the local bookie, and every town had one. But all that was in whispers and today it is broadcast on a national level. 

 Is it hurting anyone? Well, they do advertise for the gambling help line if you get into trouble with that. You won't get your money back but will get free advice on how to gamble responsibly. Yes, you can engage in vice in a responsible manner. Never heard that in church, did you? No, only from those profiting off that vice. Today we have decided that vice should be unbounded. All vice, all the time. You can now bet 24/7. I did see where the casino in Delaware is closed on Christmas and Easter. A nod to religious beliefs?  It's true that our constitution does not establish a religion. Religion and morality go hand in hand. But when writing that constitution, the framers believed only religious and moral people would govern the nation. We the people were expected to be moral and religious people. For that reason, many things were not delineated in the constitution or the bill of rights. They simply didn't feel it was necessary. Over time laws were written to regulate what the people were doing, what they were engaging in. Vice was among the earliest. That was closely followed by ethics. Yes, moral and religious peoples should display proper ethical behaviors. Not a religious thing, not a moral thing, but an ethical issue. It could be argued that all these lotteries, all this betting, is preying upon the people who can least afford it. Is it hurting anyone? 

 Is it harmful to allow a child to just do what they want? Wouldn't we call that abuse? State sponsored vice is no different in my view. All civil penalties have been removed. The only penalty left is one of a personal nature. A temptation is being offered. Advice on how to engage in that vice is being offered as well. You can engage in vice without any consequences at all. That is the message being sent. Just engage in vice in a responsible way. It's quite the progressive approach, don't you think? We have legalized gambling, some states are "decriminalizing" marijuana use saying it is legal when in fact it is still a federal crime. Abortion, for any reason at all, and at any point in the pregnancy is being decried as a right, it is health care. What other vice is left? Well, as I said I was in the Navy for twenty years, been all over the world. There are nations where entire city blocks are devoted to vice and the sex industry. Can that be far from reaching our shores? Not at the rate we are going now. In my opinion the final degradation in any society is the removal of morality. When it's legal to engage in vice, unfettered, without bounds, and without consequence. You have to believe in consequence. Consequence is what tempers our actions and our choices. You can learn to ignore consequence, but it won't go away. Some call it Karma. That is in Hindu and Buddhism and some other religions. Means the same thing. Consequences. 

 

the basics

 There is much discussion about education these days. The curriculum in the schools is under scrutiny as well as it should be. I'm for teaching the basics. In my experience it is the basics that inspire further learning, that spark that interest. If too much variety is offered, the choices are more difficult to make. The old adage about kids in a candy store applies. Reading, writing and arithmetic. Those are the basics and always have been. Everything else is extracurricular. That's what the word means. With those subjects there are rules and correct answers. They are not open for discussion, for debate. 2+2=4 is not debatable, that is the correct answer. Yes, I know you can use other systems to arrive at a different answer but that is all in the hypothetical world. If you change the value of 2 and all that. But we all know how many two really is. What is required is clear concise answers for these young minds. Don't confuse them with a bunch of nonsense that will only be used by less than 1% of the population. 

 Reading is the foundation. That has been shown by many studies. Read to a child and they will have better test scores when growing up. Teaching them to read is of paramount importance. Teaching them to comprehend what they are reading is the key in all of that. When I was a small child, we had Dick and Jane. Basic, you bet. See Jane, see Jane run. The meaning of the words was clear. You are looking at Jane, you "see" her, and she is running. Nothing more to that. The correct answer is Jane is running. No questioning whether Jane was girl or a boy, no questioning whether she was running or jogging, no question about why she was running. Nope, the message was, Jane is running. Clear concise and easy to comprehend. Later the sentences became a bit more complicated. The lesson remained the same. 

 Writing came later on. You began to learn your letters. You spelled your name first. Why was that? Because everyone likes to talk about themselves. Self-interest usually comes first. I could put my name on things making them mine. The word (my name) indicated just that, the meaning is clear. Later you added your last time to really nail that down. The lesson was to learn to write what you were thinking. It was to express your thoughts as clearly as possible, to communicate. That was the theme. This is what this word means. If you don't know, look it up in the dictionary. Webster was the preferred resource. 

 Arithmetic was also taught in the most basic of ways. We used our fingers. We had ten of them after all. Yes, there were children that didn't have ten, but they weren't offended by that, so they just adjusted. We didn't change the curriculum to response to that. We could all do basic math by the time we reached the sixth grade. Advanced math started about then for those with an aptitude or interest. Algebra wasn't a mandatory subject. The truth about that is, very few of us will use Algebra in the real world. I was an engineer in the Navy. I was the engine room supervisor of an 600lb steam propulsion system and all the associated peripherals. I never had a need to use algebra or any other advanced mathematics in that capacity. After the Navy I was an industrial mechanic, repairing machinery, fabricating parts, machining parts, assembling components or whatever. No algebra required, just basic mathematics. Fractions and decimals were involved but nothing more complex than that. The basic math skills I was taught in school have served me well. I would only need those other courses of instruction if I were to pursue a degree of some kind. Still, that doesn't mean I would use those skills, in fact, probably not. 

 In short, I think the schools should just go back to teaching the facts. Leave all the speculation, all the this is what I think stuff for later on. Teach the facts as we know them to be. We shouldn't be teaching history as we wish it had been. No, you have to teach what was. It may not look good, it may look biased and unfair, but it is what it was. Then teach how that was changed. Teach the facts. Facts like this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. It's a fact, a simple truth from history. Facts like there are only two genders, boys and girls. Fact is there are two "sexes" of almost everything on the planet, with a few exceptions. Fact, the exceptions are the exceptions, not the rule. Aberrations exist. Just like 2+2=4 you can change the value of two, an aberration of the norm, but that doesn't change the answer. It's still two in the real world. 

 I think we should grade the children on the facts. If you answer the question wrong, you are wrong. It's that simple. Now later in life you can read, write and do math anyway that suits you. You can change the world! But today you are required to provide the correct responses. I will tell you what those responses are. It isn't a debate, it's a lecture. Teachers are to teach the facts. The big issue today is the adults can't seem to decide on the facts. They are too busy trying to impress everyone with their progressive thinking and methods. There are too concerned with hurting someone's feelings. If you give the wrong answer, you are wrong. Keep giving me the wrong answer and you are just plain stupid. I'm not changing the answer to suit you. The facts remain. "Run Jane Run"  Funny how that sentence is a run on sentence. I didn't know that until grade school. Thing is that run on sentence has kept me running ever since. That's what reading will do for a person. 

in a name

 What's in a name? It's a question I have explored before and one that continues to occupy my thoughts. Perhaps international pronoun day made those thoughts resurface. When I was a child, I would get upset when someone used the wrong pronoun to describe me. That was because it was wrong however, not because I wanted the other person to validate my fantasy. But I guess that is progress. We now have a day devoted to perpetuating delusional thinking. But, I get it. Belief is a stubborn thing. The only issue being when belief becomes delusion. That's what we call mental illness. Well, until we progressively change that standard and say it isn't. When you are no longer allowed to exert judgement, or common sense, that's what happens.

 I've wandered off a bit from my original thought. What's in a name? I think from childhood we assign certain qualities to a name. Now I was named after my father and was called little Ben. I didn't particularly like that, being little I mean. I was the youngest of four. Both of my older brothers were bigger, stronger and more athletic than I was. I was little. When buying clothes Mom always bought the "slim" fit. Slim is code for skinny, that 98 lb. weakling portrayed on the back of comic books. I didn't hit one hundred pounds until about the ninth grade.

 I did want to be Ben though. It is what I believed I was supposed to become. I wouldn't call it hero worship, but I surely admired the skills my father possessed. A man that was a jack of all trades, respected in the community for his skills, if not for his opinions. Growing up I heard tales of his youth from his contemporaries. Yes, Ben was quite the man. He even had a cool nickname, swivel hips, for his dancing skills. I never heard anyone call him that to his face though I'm guessing that name had been retired years ago. The only time I saw him dance was at my sister's wedding. I saw why he had that name. So, I went off into the world to become Ben, leaving little Ben at home.

 I have used the name Ben since 1971. That's the year I joined the Navy. When asked I always say my name is Ben. Truth is that my name is Austin. Yup, Austin Bennett Reichart, Jr. I have done some researching about all of that dad didn't talk about it at all. Turns out the name Austin Bennett was the name of my grandfather's best friend. Grandfather Elwood just added the Reichart to it! I have a picture of this man Austin Bennett too. Exactly why he was always called ben isn't as clear. Austin Bennett was also called ben, perhaps an abbreviation of his last name? Does any of that make a difference? No, I don't think it does. It is something I have thought about. What if I had been called Austin? Would I be a different person? Maybe, maybe not. I think it boils down to this. Would I have tried to be Ben, or would I have tried to become Austin? Who is Austin? 

 That is what is in a name. Is it what they mean when they say making a name for yourself? In some ways I would have to say that is the truth. I tried for many years to become my father. He was the model for my behaviors. Those behaviors were both good and bad, although I didn't see the bad for quite a while. I've always justified his bad actions just as I have done with my own. It's a natural response we all have if we care to admit to it. I'm aware that I was raised to be Ben. We all want our children to be like us, only better. The only difficult part being admitting to it when they are better. So, I have indeed become Ben. Am I better? I can't answer that. I'm Ben. 

 Now Austin may have something to say about all of that. But Ben usually tells him to be quiet. It's difficult enough to talk to yourself, you don't need someone else interfering. Ben is the dominant personality. I'm aware of that, have always been aware of that, and there isn't anything I can do about that either. What's in a name? What you want to be is the short answer. What you are may be something else. The name isn't that important, the content is. It's rather a strange thing really. Your name is a proper noun. A proper noun is a name given to something. It is always capitalized. It doesn't mean that is what something is, just that is what we call it. Call me Ben. 

 Now pronouns take the place of the person's name. So instead of saying Ben you might say he or him. Really doesn't have much to do with gender identification. If I have never seen you in a manner where there is no doubt about your gender, and you say your name is Sue, I will refer to you as she. I may express some doubts to others, however. That goes back to the schoolyard where we had a habit of just telling the truth or telling a lie to hurt someone else. Yes, back in my youth lies were told to hurt or offend. Today it seems like that has reversed. Now the truth offends and lies are validated. Nouns and pronouns are something I haven't paid much attention too since ninth grade English. Man, I hope we don't start in with verbs and adverbs! That could change everything.