reality

  I was listening to the news as they were talking about the trans shooter that killed six people. The discussion began, naturally, by blaming the weapon used. It was those assault rifles once again, with huge magazines that spray deadly bullets in every direction. If we just banned all of those this would stop! Then the conversation shifted a bit to the mental state of the shooter. It was mentioned that this shooter had written a manifesto! Yes, it is a manifesto, all the bad guys write manifestos. Or in this case a guy that thinks he is a girl. But none of that mattered anyway, as it was the fault of the weapon used. They went on to express their concern for the trans community as that community may face backlash, experience discrimination or be blamed! It was agreed we have a mental health issue in this country, but the trans people aren't part of that. 

 The DSM manual is the guidebook for that. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Transgenderism was changed from gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria. Dysphoria isn't a disorder but should still be treated. But not treated for the identity issue, treated for the way others may interact with the person having the disorder, er, dysphoria. 

 It's a part of that I'm okay, you're okay philosophy. In that book the author talks about transactional analysis. The author says we are all born with a sense of what is right and wrong, but we can learn to change that. Yeah, he started this whole, you're ok thing. Fact is, I'm okay and some of you are not! That's how I feel about it. I thought; Sanity is shared reality. 

 I typed that phrase into the google search engine and a list of books, thesis, and papers on that very subject appeared. I could find very learned people that agreed with me and ones that were completely opposed. It wasn't surprising. In fact, I found it a bit reassuring. I have never studied philosophy or psychiatry at any level, but both of those groups had written my thoughts. I always knew great minds think alike, except for the great minds that don't agree with me. I do believe that sanity is shared reality. When you refuse to believe reality, you have a mental issue. Yes, there are many degrees to that, many ways to view it, and not all are necessarily bad, but whatever they are doesn't change things. Sanity is shared reality. 

 I agree with the author of that book I'm Ok, You're Ok in that we are born with a sense of right and wrong. I disagree with this idea that we should somehow change that. It is instinct that allows us to survive! It's a built-in thing, instilled by whoever or whatever created us. I'll leave that up to you, but it is vital to our wellbeing as human beings. He was trying to say that your parents are the ones that are responsible for what you believe to be right and wrong. Well, I'd say he was partially correct in that, they do have a very strong influence on all that. Whether you accept that as right or wrong, is still up to you. And that is where the whole deal gets sticky. When reality interferes with our decisions instead of guiding them, we are not OK. When we attempt to alter or redefine reality, we are not OK. 

 The reality is simple enough. Guns are not killing people; people are killing people. We cannot magically make every gun on the planet disappear. Enacting laws to prevent the sane people from buying guns as a defense against insane people is crazy! Yes, there is a mantal health crisis in this country. The crazies are starting to run the funhouse. You can tell me how you feel all day long, every day, for years, but until I share that feeling I will not accept that feeling. Sanity is shared reality. You can call it empathy if you like, but empathy and reality are not the same thing. I can understand your feelings, but I really can't share them. Nazism was insanity! Nevertheless, it was a shared reality for many. It happened when the crazies were allowed to run the funhouse. Liberalism can have the same effect on the population. Without the acceptance of reality there is no reality, only fantasy. Fantasy can be fun, entertaining, an amusement, but when fantasy is mistaken for reality, disaster is inevitable. 

 We need to go back to reality. Some folks are just nuts! The clues are there if you look at them. If you can't tell whether you are a boy or a girl, you have a real issue. That's reality. All this woke nonsense is fueling insanity. I'm not responsible for what happened two hundred years ago, I'm not responsible for your failures or your financial status. I'm ok, some of you are not! Yes, I think sanity is shared reality. The only difficulty being defining reality. I'm as certain of my reality as you should be of yours. I do not require anyone else to validate that reality. I question those that do with their flag waving, ribbon wearing and activism. Seems to me they are simply looking for that reassurance, that validation. Seems to me those folks are always the ones wanting to change everything for the better, then complaining when it isn't. Accepting reality is always the best starting point when attempting to overcome an obstacle. Among that is the acceptance that you can't change some things, reality is one of those! 

guaranteed

 The Ravens football team is having an issue signing their quarterback. Lamar Jackson has been negotiating with the owners for quite a while now. They haven't agreed to what he is asking and now he is asking to be traded. Now I admit to enjoying watching the game on a Sunday now that all that kneeling stuff has calmed down. But I wouldn't call myself a die-hard fan at all, fact is I'm still a little sick from that kneeling episode and could relapse at any moment. I really don't care what they do with Lamar and his contract. There are plenty of quarterbacks to take his place. So, whatever.

 I'm not well informed about these negotiations and how the whole process works. I've heard something about a franchise tag, and what they can or cannot do. If Lamar isn't traded by July, he still has to play for the Ravens. A disgruntled employee may not be the best choice to lead your team, but I guess all they really have to do is pay him. Well, whatever the case happens to be my understanding of the main problem, the reason no contract was signed, was because Lamar wants a five-year guarantee. He wants a certain amount of money guaranteed to him whether he plays or not, whether he is injured or not, in short, he wants to be guaranteed a paycheck for the next five years. That is what he feels his worth is. I've haven't heard any figures, but the general consensus is, more than 230 million dollars! That's more than 46 million a year. If he worked 24/7 for a full year, that equates to 5,251 dollars an hour! Not bad for playing a game. 

 There is some talk that the owners of the other teams are colluding with the Ravens ownership. The talk is the owners want to nip this guaranteed stuff in the bud. It is like employers that don't want to pay a minimum wage. Employers had to be forced in to that some years back if you recall your history. That happened in 1938. Now raising that guaranteed rate is always a topic of conversation but no none is proposing guaranteeing you that rate whether you work or not! No, we have other programs for that, some even more fruitful than if you were actually working. Amazing, isn't it? But all that is another topic. 

 It is a sign of the times. It seems like a lot of people are expecting guarantees these days. It has gone way beyond expecting to be paid for your labor, to being guaranteed that you will be successful. It doesn't matter if you are qualified, show up for work, work while you are at work, comply with the rules or are productive, you are guaranteed success. If you are not, it isn't your fault, it is the fault of the system. Did you go to the doctor and get an unexpected outcome? Sue them, you should be guaranteed a positive outcome every time. It was probably negligence of their part or a lack of training. Did your self driving car run into a tree? Sue the company, it wasn't supposed to do that! And I ordered a double shot latte with foam and a hint of cinnamon, but the barista fouled up, sue them. 

 Well, all I can say is this, nothing in this world is guaranteed. Death and taxes are certain just like Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1789. As far as giving Lamar Jackson a guaranteed deal for five years I wouldn't do it either. I am paying you to do a job. If you can no longer do that job, I'm not paying you, it's that simple. That is what insurance is for. Each state decides just how much you can receive in unemployment insurance. There is a cap on that amount, you are not guaranteed your full salary. I don't see why it should be any different for a football player, or any other player for that matter. The players union negotiates on behalf of the players. They have done great things for those players, no doubt about that. But now like every other union in the country they are getting just a bit greedy. Looking for guarantees. Unions began as a way to ensure the basic needs of the workers were being met, safety, hours worked and a min wage. My how that has changed. 

 I don't know it all just makes me wonder. Things sure aren't going to get any better if we continue on this path. Life has a way of throwing a wrench into the best laid plans of man and government. We had better relearn a simple lesson, nothing is guaranteed. Another lesson to be learned is, you get pretty much what someone else is willing to give. You really don't get to decide on that. You may feel like you are the next big thing, so valuable, irreplaceable even, but you are not. Bruce Jenner may feel like a woman, but he is not. Are all the owners of the other teams colluding? Can 32 teams create a monopoly? That's basically what they are trying to say. If the other 31 teams refuse to give Lamar a guaranteed contract for five years, it's because of collusion! Or maybe it is just common sense that they don't. I sure wouldn't set that precedent. Then what? A guaranteed career? I'll sign out of college for a twenty-year deal at 46 million a year, guaranteed, whether I play or not. 

the strength of belief

  I read that the Episcopal church has revised the Book of Common prayer. Now I was baptized in the Episcopal church and attended quite regularly when I was still living at home. I was a member of the Jr. Choir, the youth group and later served as an Acolyte. I was quite proud of having a perfect attendance record that spanned at least five years. That was recognized by my minister, the Reverend Samuel Davis, with a signed copy of that book of common prayer in 1968. That was almost a decade before that revision had taken place. I wasn't aware that the revision prior to that was in 1928. I have since learned that revisions took place in 1892 and 1789. There were others dating back to 1549. All that came as a bit of a surprise. You just don't think about those things being revised or updated. It's like the Bible, to me, the Kings James version is the Bible, although I am aware of others including the new versions where the language is changed. I expect the hope is to appeal to the younger folks. Make it more relatable. I get that. Now I read where the Episcopal church is working on another revision to the Book of Common prayer.

 All this made me wonder why you would revise a prayer book. I did some reading on the web about it written by the Episcopal church and others. I read where the language was changed to reflect the times, to make it more understandable to the general public. Yes, mostly it was to make it easy to understand for us laypeople, you know the uneducated masses. That is still a part of the reasoning today. It's all in the translation. It has always been in the translation. Whether from the Greek or the Latin the Bible has been translated to another language to make it understandable. I get that, it makes perfect sense. But further reading I discovered some other reasons I find disturbing. When the translation begins to change the meaning, I have an issue with that. This latest revision is going to focus on gender. It has now been decided that God is too masculine, and God should be a gender-neutral entity. The Bible is just filled with men doing this and men doing that and that isn't acceptable. For me, I see that as the Episcopal church going woke! It is no longer a doctrine I can follow. 

 I often wondered why people of different denominations found themselves at odds with other Christians or religions. When I was little, I was told the only difference between an Episcopalian and Catholic was Episcopalians didn't pray to the saints. Everything else was pretty much the same. I was told about the Methodists, they sang too loudly in church, the Baptists often spoke in tongues and danced in the aisles, and the Presbyterians were a bunch of stuffed shirts. It was all in what was allowed or not. As I got older and interacted with all these people, I learned that most were this or that because that is what their parents were. I also learned that we all believed pretty much the same thing as far as the basic doctrine went. It was the practice of worshiping that differed. And know I know this, when the practice differs from the belief, I'm not going there anymore. 

 I'm saying that I have discovered the Episcopal church has moved away from what I was taught and what I have come to believe. It's a difficult thing to realize, to come to terms with. But I remind myself religion is about what you believe, not what you are told to believe. When the translation changes the meaning of the message, I have to reject that translation. I can't reconcile what I was taught by the Right Reverend Samuel Davis, the man that baptized me and instructed fifty years ago with what that church is teaching today. I do not believe the Bible, or our prayers should be changed. Yes, new translations are helpful, a changing of the terms used to make things clear is fine, but changing the meaning is not! You don't get to rewrite the Bible or the Prayer Book to suit the woke crowd. It may keep you in business, if that is your aim, and I question if that is the true motive. You can call it remaining relatable if you like, but for me it is a concession. And I don't believe you should ever make a concession for what you believe. Saints and Martyrs didn't make any concessions. They just kept on saying what they believed even when it wasn't the popular thing to do. 

 I realize that everything has to grow, change, and keep with the times. It's a natural process but can still be unsettling. I remember when ladies wore a hat and gloves to church and wouldn't even think about going without. I remember wearing our church clothes, got a new set at Easter. I remember when the church doors were always open, unlocked, and you were free to enter that house of God to pray or sit in quiet contemplation. I remember the Minister saying, we are gathered here today to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony. I don't know what they say today when two guys are getting married or two women. I see the people going to church today dressed like they were going to a nightclub or sporting event. I hear music streaming out the doors that sound like a rock concert. Yes, things have changed, and changed a lot since I went to that Episcopal church. I have watched on a web cam as services are conducted in that very church today and find it foreign to me. I suppose it is just that I'm getting old. I want what I'm comfortable with, and I want my beliefs reenforced, not told they are wrong. And now I think I'm beginning to understand why there are those denominations and why they may be at odds with all the others. It is about belief. The strength of belief. I believe very strongly in the teachings of that old church. That church built the foundation of my faith, and I will not change that. That is the strength of belief. They can translate the text, provide an alternative interpretation, but for me the meaning will always remain the same. Not changing that. 

No

 Once again, I hear about a school shooting. They are always especially heinous as children are targeted. The perpetrator going for the emotional jugular. The mental defective in this latest assault was a transgender. That's what the news is forced to say when the reality is it was a guy with a mental illness, among them thinking he was a woman! But we are supposed to overlook that, gender dysphoria is just a normal thing, no problem there, and we are going to fund transitional surgery for children. Then they can grow up with a mental defect and everyone else will not notice. Of course, the blame will be placed on guns. Two assault rifles and a handgun were used in this episode. Nothing wrong with the mental state of the person, it was the guns that assaulted those six people.

 The problem isn't the gun, it is mental health. And we are enabling this with all this woke garbage and inclusiveness. As we have removed religion and religious instruction from our homelife and moved it to televangelists, mega-churches and Sunday concert and side shows, we have seen an increase in mental health issues. The more we assure those with a mental health problem that they will be forgiven for anything they do, will receive treatment, and held up as an example of "recovery" without consequence it will continue. I see these examples of success all the time on television giving testimony, writing books, and being treated like a star. Sure, they were addicts robbing and stealing from friends and family alike, but they have changed. And if it is shown that they haven't, that is just a relapse, a temporary setback. Certainly, they shouldn't be punished for that, it isn't their fault. It's the drugs, the drugs are addictive. We should provide counter acting drugs to those that are sober, so they can administer this to the addicts. That way they can live again to take more drugs in the future. It's the drugs' fault you know. 

 At least in this last case the perpetrator was shot and killed quickly. How many lives were saved by that action? And yes, it took another gun to make that happen. A gun in the hands of a sane person that knew exactly what to do. I feel absolutely no sorrow for that guy, dressed as a woman, that got shot and killed. He got exactly what he deserved. That saved the taxpayers a lot of money too. Case closed. A nutjob attacked innocent people and got eliminated. Bravo! 

 In the movies, in those old westerns there were always gunfights. Armed citizens shooting each other all the time, the bad guys robbing banks and shooting up the town. That is Hollywood, a fantasy. The reality is during the period of the "old west" a time frame of about twenty years, only ten documented gunfights took place. Historical fact. The majority of the people owned firearms for a variety of reasons. Not that many walked around with a gun strapped around their waist. Those that did were quite aware of the dangers. The typical old west town was much safer than living in New York City today. The difference back then? People lived with reality. Yes, that's the long and short of it. There was little of this make-believe world that so many survive in today. The real world is far less forgiving than your neighbors. That was the reality everyone was aware of. Mental illness was recognized as just that, you're off your rocker. 

 It's time to get real people. Guns aren't the problem. Mental health is the problem. Good mental health starts with a single word, no. Parents need to say that, teachers need to say that, and government needs to say that. No. The fact is you aren't special, you are the gender you were born with, it isn't an assignment it's a fact. If you screw up, you will be held to account. You will not be given unlimited chances to correct your issues. I will tell you what the problem is, and it is up to you to fix that. I don't care how you feel, what you think, or what you want. Sometimes the answer is a simple, no. That's where mental health begins with the acceptance of reality. Reality begins with, no. But I'm: no, you are not, you will not, and you cannot. Deal with it. 

How it works

 The purpose of law is to delineate what actions are acceptable in a society. That is their sole purpose and intent. Just as John Adams pointed out that our Constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people, so too are our laws. Law will not change human behavior. It will only provide punishment for acting outside of those laws. That, to me, should seem obvious enough for anyone to understand. Yet there are many that would seem to believe otherwise. Some believing we can write laws that will change human behavior just as the Bible and other religious texts are supposed to move their believers. The only difference being the manner of punishment. But that, that isn't how the law works. And it certainly doesn't work that way in a Democracy or Republic. The majority rules in both of those forms of government. The majority decides what is right and wrong. The minorities in those societies will always feel they are not being treated fairly. It doesn't matter what the law says. The law exists to justify the majority opinion. That is true even in a dictatorship or monarchy, the justification in those being, because I said so, and I have the means to force compliance. 

  The purpose of law is to instill restraint among the people. These are the things that will be allowed, and these are the things that will not. Here is the list! Those violating anything on the list will have to answer to proper authority. The United States based its' judiciary on English common law. That had been established following the battle of hastings in 1066. In common law Judges sitting on a court make the laws. They do so based on their interpretation of the law and precedent. In our Republic the Supreme court offers their opinion on the constitutionality of a law, they don't make the law. In our system the people make the law. Congress makes the law, through representatives. Congress is the people.  

 But no matter who actually makes the law its purpose remains the same. to provide penalties for non-compliance. The law is a means for the majority to impose their will upon the minority. The majority can also make laws protecting the minority, from the majority! Self-governance is the objective of a Republic. But in the real world, we all know that it doesn't work that way. Restraint isn't the long suit of mankind. Self-governance is self-restraint. It is doing the right thing even when no one is looking. But without some form of punishment, some determent, few will exercise that restraint. Our Bible tells us we will be eternally damned for non-compliance with the will of God. Our government says you can get a fine or jail time, or death. Well, depending on the time and place and a number of other factors. The big difference being the government isn't like Santa Claus and doesn't see you when you're sleeping, or know when you're awake, the government doesn't know whether you have been bad or good. But the government is working on that! The law exists for you to be good, for goodness sake and provide penalties if you are not.

 The law is the moral compass of any organization, club, community, or nation. That is what laws are made for in the first place. The United States was created and codified using Judeo-Christian ideas of moral and ethical practices. That was the majority. It was also the reason there was no state religion. What is allowed by the Catholics and allowed by the Methodists can differ broadly. You can't base law on religious belief. The Muslim nations do that, combining the two and the results are often very unpleasant. 

 Again, the very reason John Adams said what he did. Our constitution is only adequate for a moral and religious people. Religion providing the impetus for compliance, our laws providing the moral guidance. Slavery, as an example, had been opposed on moral grounds long before the United States was even established. It wasn't on legal grounds. It took the United States of America 89 years to abolish that practice, to codify into law (make immoral) the holding of slaves. Yes, there were those that thought of themselves as religious people that held slaves, it wasn't illegal, therefore it was allowed. The Bible does not specifically condemn the holding of slaves. It just doesn't say that. It does give instructions on how slaves are to be treated though. The same argument is used often enough today, the law doesn't say I can't, therefore I can. It's legal, therefore it is right, is also used frequently. 

 The law is the imposition of morality. That's what it is. Morality, Ethics and Religion are mechanisms to regulate the actions of people. Defining just where the line between law, ethics and morality lies however, is another matter entirely. It is a topic debated since antiquity. There are scholars on all sides of that argument. Religious leaders and Politicians argue that. The everyday man argues the same as well. The argument is really, how much immorality can we accept, or allow? That's because when all is said and done, when the proverbial smoke clears, that is the final question. Men act upon their moral, religious and ethical convictions. That's why they go to war! Morals are all about conviction. Remove the conviction and anything is allowed. Then it is simply, can I get away with this? I can if there is no consequence. That's the law. 

my theory is

  I was asked what I thought critical race theory is. I didn't attempt an answer on that post as I felt it would take a blog to explain what I think. And that is what a lot of these blog postings of mine are, an explanation. Yes, my explanation, and you may or may not agree with it, just like your parents may or may not have agreed when you were explaining why you did whatever you did. It was never because everyone else was doing it, or was it? Well, I have to admit that the majority of the time that was the impetus behind the action. I did want to fit in, be cool. Thought I'd give it a try. It was always a measure of risk and reward. I was a pretty "good" kid because I didn't take a lot of risk. I required a larger reward than some I knew. But anyway, I was asked about critical race theory.

 Now I have read various opinions by a number of scholars, politicians and pundits. I've listened to all the arguments. For me the whole "theory" is just a bunch of nonsense. These so called scholars have taken a mole hill, a simple basic fact of life, and made it into something else. Something to make themselves appear learned and so much more enlightened than us average folks. People with a lower level of education can never understand such a subtle nuance in society.  It's bull. The deal is simple. People do not like other people that are different than themselves. That's it. Laws and institutions are established by those people in a position of power that can enforce those rules. Race has little to do with that. It's about power! This critical race theory, at its' core, wants to do the same thing. It wants to establish that as law, enforced by those with the power to do so. 

 The underlining message in this theory is simply that all laws and institutions created by our government, and indeed all European governments through the ages, where created by racists. The white people of the world have done this systematically over centuries. Black nations never did that, they have always been open and accepting of everyone. Remember they didn't take slaves, they sold them. Their nations never made any laws that reflected systemic racism. They simply attacked their enemies without bias.

 At the core of this theory is the term race. What is race? The scholars can't agree. Some say it is based on certain physical characteristics. Other will tell you it is based on culture and beliefs. I'm with the second group. Race is all about culture and belief. It's not a theory, it's fact that people just don't like people that are different from themselves. They may be amused or entertained by them, but they don't want them to exercise any power over them. It's about power, not race. In the early 1970's a man named Derrick Bell, a civil rights leader, developed this critical race theory. He was concerned that the civil rights movement had slowed down and some things were being reversed. Yes, the problem was equality was being realized. But even with all the changes, the removal of past barriers, the black man was still facing discrimination. 

 Maybe it wasn't legal anymore, but it was still happening! And so, he developed this theory. Generally, white people don't like black people. They are suspicious and untrusting of them. As a result, they have created laws and institutions to protect themselves from them. The black people don't have the power to force their beliefs, their culture and their laws on the rest of the population.  Even today blacks only comprise about 14% of the population, outnumbered by Hispanics and whites. Laws are being passed by those folks! It must be in the system. Yes professor, we have a government controlled by the majority. Imagine that.

 The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is a simple fact of life. Everyone wants to be treated equally, until they are. It is at that point that everyone looks for an edge. There is surely some reason I should get just a little more than everyone else. If I have high school diploma, I should make more than someone without. If I have a college degree, even more. And if I'm a professor I am certainly much better than some uneducated workman! I should enjoy certain privileges because of my fame or fortune. I should get this or that because I'm disabled, old, infirm, mentally challenged or being marginalized in some way. I'm not equal! I'm only equal when I'm just a bit better than you. And that is what this theory is all about. A reason I should get more than the majority. The theory is, history is just racist, the whole white race is racist, and therefore the black race should get more. It's all because of the color of our skin. Well, that's the professor's theory anyway. Mine is a bit different. Those in power always make the rules regardless of race, creed or national origin. They will continue to make the rules as long as they have the power to enforce those rules. And that's all there is to it. Not difficult to understand at all. 

 All that being said I feel like I should preface that with this statement. It may not be what we wish it to be, but it is what it is. And you are not about to change it. 

living

  The other day I was having a conversation with someone about the teachers going on strike. Their demands were not being met and they walked out. In this conversation I was told how they, and everyone else, deserves a living wage. I thought, yes that's true enough but just how much is that? So, I went to the government guidelines. The government says an annual salary of 67,900 dollars is the minimum for a living wage. That would equate to 32.50 an hour based on working 2087 hours a year. Well, that's before taxes anyway. Figure another thirty per cent for taxes and you need to earn 88,270 or 42.29 an hour. I can't help but wonder how I'm alive. I have never earned forty-two dollars an hour! That salary would make you middle class. Lower middle class. I found that interesting. 

 I did some reading about that, and the government guideline says that 50% of my income should go to necessities like housing, food, and clothing. Another 30% goes to discretionary spending like vacations. The remaining 20% goes in a savings account. So, if I make that living wage of 67,900 and half goes to the necessities, I only need 33,950 dollars. That's about 2800 dollars a month for the necessities. No vacations, no savings. That is the true amount you need to live. That is about 16 an hour before taxes. Add thirty percent and you get 20.80 an hour. Seems I've been poor all my life and didn't even know it!   But if 67,900 is a livable wage, the minimum wage, how much should more experienced workers earn? After all we should all earn a livable wage, right? And what about those with a degree, with loans to pay for that education, they surely would have to make more than the average joe. And shouldn't those on welfare get a living stipend as well? What about those disabled, don't they deserve that as well? The average social security recipient only gets 1600 a month! That's just a bit over half of what they need to live, if they don't have any discretionary spending or savings. Why is the government allowing that. If social security recipients are to have a living wage that would have to be 5658 a month. That's the living wage. Social security recipients are entitled to live, aren't they?

 Okay so now everyone is making that living wage. How much would that increase the cost of goods and services? I don't know but know the prices would go up, way up. According to government economists the average business operates with a 7.7% profit margin. If min wage is now going to 42.29 an hour, the cost of doing business will certainly be much greater. On average the min wage is 7.25 an hour. That varies according to the state but is the overall average. Increase that by a factor of six plus another 7.7% for profit and the cost of goods and services surely have to rise significantly. When they do that living wage isn't going to be nearly enough. It's a never-ending cycle. Has been since man conceived the idea of money. 

 What to do about that? Currently the plan is to have the government control the money. The electronic means to do is available. All that is needed is compliance. Once the government can control the flow of money, control of the population will have been achieved. Free enterprise will exist no more. The accumulation of wealth will be criminalized. Government will control all of that. Government will control your job, where and who you work for, what vacations you take, what media you enjoy. Of course, you realize there will be a crisis before things get out of hand. A crisis requiring the government to assume martial authority. It'll be easier if we can disarm the citizenry first though and or least restrict the availability of ammo. Then the government will tell you what you get, instead of providing what you want. 

 Government is already setting the living wage through regulations, codes, statutes, and laws. You can't legally live in a home without hot/cold water, heating, and a certain number of bedrooms depending upon the size of your family. Consider the requirements the government is currently imposing on you. You have to have a license or a permit to conduct business of any kind. In some places your children can't have a lemonade stand! You can't hunt, fish or farm without government intervention. If you are not insured or bonded there isn't much service work that you can do either. The government is telling you that only half of what you earn should be for the necessities. Well really the guideline is 30% for fun. 30% to distract you from what is really happening. 

 A living wage? Perhaps the measure of happiness isn't in what we can buy, but what we can contribute. That contribution isn't to the government however, it is to those we love and care for, in our own way, without government intervention. That was the pursuit of happiness referred to. The founding fathers were expressing what they knew to be reality. You are either free or a slave. They believed that every man has the right to be free. Government itself could imprison man and restrict this pursuit of happiness. Happiness to them was to live free. Free from government control and intervention. That is the basis for a Republic. By the people, for the people, and of the people. And freedom requires Independence. That is what needs to be understand above all else. Independence isn't dependence upon government! Perhaps what is needed is not more money, but less government.  

swatting at flies

 I see where Biden ordered a drone strike on Iranian forces. It was in retaliation to their attack on an American military base in Syria. Justified certainly. It was carried out by a drone(s). Not the first time and I'm certain not the last. I question if we need standing troops in Syria at all. Really do we need a standing army? Will any war be fought in such a manner in the future? I can't see troops massing across the battlefield from each other. Why do that when you can send a drone? Shouldn't war be as safe as possible? The objective in war is exactly what General George Patton said. It isn't to die for your country but to have the other poor bastard die for his. This nation started with a militia; it had no standing army. The truth is the founding fathers were a bit leery of any standing armies. That was the primary reason behind the second amendment. When only the army is armed, the government can be dangerous. That can be seen throughout European history. The purpose of a militia or army is to defend the nation against their enemies. That is the reason for them, although they have always been used for other purposes, like gaining territory, resources and manpower, always for the gain of those in position of power within that government. Emperor, King, President, it makes little difference. 

 Today we have a standing army all over the world! Not just within our borders anymore, we keep a military presence on every continent with the exception of Antartica. In fact, we have about four hundred military bases on those other continents. The explanation is that we are supporting our allies, keeping the peace. We have 60,000 troops in Germany! For total number of troops, we rank #7 on the list. Germany isn't in the top ten. It ranks #25 with a total of 180,00 members. We have a full 1/3 of that number there! Is it any wonder the size of our military budget? It is about 778 billion dollars. If we just brought all our troops home, inside our borders where it really belongs, that budget would certainly be a lot less. But do we really need 1.3 million active duty servicepeople. Are we ever going to field a ground force in the thousands? I think it is highly unlikely. Drones, missiles, and other autonomous means will be deployed. 

 The one big question in all of this is whether our complete destructive force will be used. If attacked, will we use nuclear, biological or chemical means? It's the same ethical question Truman faced. We all know what was ordered. It is still being debated today. Did it actually save lives, shorten the war and was therefore justified, even merciful? Our capabilities today are light years advanced from then. Those bombs are like firecrackers compared to the destructive force of our weapons today. We have had many meetings with other nations since, attempting to limit that, to prevent the spread of all that. Does anyone really believe anyone is going to voluntarily make themselves weaker? The truth is, it only takes one! So, what is the purpose of our standing armies today? Are they to simply engage in limited warfare? To act like a small police force to the world? Are they to serve as sentries? To just keep an eye on things so to speak. 

 Of course, I realize that we are not a nation alone. It's a big world and we need each other. It is necessary to project our power lest others think we are weak. This has to be done without provocation to the other nations. Diplomatic relations are what that is called. Walk softly but carry a big stick! Theodore Roosevelt used that as his policy. He was a member of the Republican party. The ethical question, the dilemma is, do you use that stick! What's the point in having it, if you don't intend on using it. The hope is that it acts as a deterrent. This local drone strike is like swatting at flies. It eliminates a few but doesn't solve the problem. What to solve the problem once and for all? Destroy the source. It's that simple. 

 It seems like the purpose of all these military bases around the globe are to swat at the flies. They are a source of annoyance, no doubt about that. But we can't simply eliminate the species either. Even flies serve a purpose. Should we use a bigger fly swatter? Yes, same old question isn't it. 

rote

 I have been accused of repeating myself. All I can say about that is, guilty as charged. I do repeat myself. I think we all do if what we are saying is what we believe. If it isn't what you believe than it makes sense that you would always be saying something different. Seems logical enough to me. I'm aware that today we are supposed to be changing our minds, changing our opinions, and changing our beliefs to become more inclusive. The more we do that the more enlightened we become. That's what I'm hearing anyway. And I'm hearing that from the ones that want to change my mind, change my opinion, and change my beliefs. It isn't so much that they want me to be included as they want me to include them. I shouldn't judge them. The problem with judgement is the verdict, not the actual act of judging. The fear is the verdict may not go your way. That's why I need to change your mind, your opinion and your belief. That's how that works. 

 Mark Twain expressed it best when he said." if you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." That's the simple truth. As a result, I will repeat what I have said before. Sometimes I try saying it in a different way, using a different analogy or anecdote, but the message is the same. Well, that's when there is a message. There are times when there isn't any message at all. I'm just talking. I have had some very interesting conversations with myself. Sometimes I even change my mind, my opinion and my belief. When it happens, I write it down. Strange how that isn't remembered by others though, only when I repeat myself. Imagine that. But it you want someone to remember something, repeat it often, they'll remember. It has been said if you want to remember something, write it down. That works really well on a personal level. But most people won't read the same thing over and over. Today it seems people don't read anything if it is over a few lines. And when speaking many times acronyms are used in place of saying the actual name. There are so many acronyms these days it is like a different language. You really have to be aware of the context to avoid confusion. Is it a disease or a snide remark on social media. Do you know all of these? BRB, DIY, LOL, FYI, FOMO, GIF, JPEG, YOLO, and BAE. That's just a few. A google search for a list of medical acronyms yields forty-eight columns! Trying to remember the acronyms is more of a challenge to me than learning a new language. ROFL

 Yes, I do repeat myself. All old people repeat themselves. The reason is easy enough to understand. We are old enough to have made up our mind. We are also old enough to not really care if others like it or not. Gone are the days of trying to be "cool." We have adopted our fashion sense, I'm almost seventy and still wearing jeans and sneakers. I'm not wearing shoes without socks, even loafers. I'm not wearing cargo shorts in the winter, or summer for that matter. I have my musical likes and think the new music stinks! So yes, I do repeat myself. I'll keep on repeating myself. My hope is one day when things are going bad, when someone is disappointed or just plain frustrated, they will say, Ben said that would happen. I should have listened to him. God knows he said it often enough. Heck, he even wrote it down. Repeating yourself is like writing without the w, you learn by rote.  

 Another thing that old people have learned is, you are not the judge of me. As a result, I am not worried about your verdict. You do not hold that power over me. You can only have that power when I allow it. Often, we call that power, respect. When I accept your opinion, your judgement, that is because I respect you. I may or may not accept the verdict. That doesn't change my level of respect for you though. That's what getting old should do for you, allow you to understand that and accept that. You have made up your mind and that's a good thing. I respect people of conviction, even when they think I should be the convict. 

It is

  This morning I find my thoughts preoccupied. It's a rather strange feeling but it is the only way I can describe it. My thoughts are not under my control as they wander about, preoccupied. This happened to me, the result of receiving some very sad news. I heard from a friend that she was in the hospital and her next destination was hospice care. We all know what that means. There are no words that can be written, no words said, to express my feelings. There is no need to question why, no need to say I'm sorry, no words of comfort or encouragement. All there is, is finality. My preoccupation is the search for peace. That's what we all need to find in times like that. When we receive upsetting news, or something happens that we can't control or explain. We search for peace. 

 Peace comes from tolerance, not acceptance. That is what I have discovered so far in life. The two actions are easily confused. I can tolerate something without accepting that. But there are times when all you can do is accept what is, that's reality. Reality doesn't always bring peace however, sometimes it is quite the contrary. Anger, bitterness, sorrow, grief and frustration can all arrive at the same time, that's reality. I have learned to accept that. In that way I tolerate the day. What I can't tolerate, I can't accept, and that disturbs my peace. Tolerating reality is the challenge each of us face every day. We all attempt to change that reality as well. Peace is realizing that you cannot. You want things to change, but have learned to tolerate the reality, it won't. Peace of mind isn't getting things your way; it is the tolerance of reality. 

Sometimes reality just stinks. That's the way it is. That's life. 

illegally legal?

 Russian and China are having a meeting. The nation's financial system is in danger of collapse. North Korea is firing missile saying they are practicing attacking South Korea. The president is saying the United States will not honor any agreements made between China and Russia in regard to the Ukraine. The message is basically, we would rather have a war. The influx of illegals across our southern border increases every day. Fentanyl is killing hundreds of people across the country, being transported by these illegals. Our major cities are in disarray with crime running rampant. The pandemic is "over" but we are supposed to be testing for covid twice a week. The response to all of this? Arrest Trump. That's pretty much the plan. 

 The case is pretty much she said, he said and I said. She said she had an affair with Trump and went to the National Enquire with the story. The Enquirer put her in touch with Trumps lawyer who agreed to pay her 130,000 dollars to be quiet. She agreed. Then the lawyer was paid back in monthly payments as it was his money used to make the initial payment. No charges against him as it isn't illegal to pay hush money. But he spilled the beans for whatever reason and told. Now those monthly payments are what is in question. Trump says they were legal fees, and the lawyer says he was paying back a loan. But it is all a very risky business and could backfire on the Democrats. There big witness is disgraced attorney Cohen. The big obstacle is proving that any of this had anything to do with campaign finances. That is the only potential crime here. It is a felony to commit a crime while trying to cover up another crime. 

 The bottom line here is this whole charade is a political ploy. It is meant to distract the general public from more serious issues facing this administration. No one, not even the staunchest of democrats believes Joe Biden could serve another term. But they have hitched their proverbial wagon to him. The only way he could win is by eliminating the competition before the contest. The plan is to create enough hate and division in the electorate that the Republicans can't field a viable candidate. 

 Well, we will all just have to wait and see how this all plays out. It will certainly provide apple fodder for the all the media outlets and pundits. Should be a regular circus. He said, I said, she said, and the payments were made, but they weren't illegal. He was simply paying back a friend. Cohen paid Daniels 130,000 dollars to remain quiet. An agreement was made. The agreement itself wasn't anything illegal. The paying of the money wasn't illegal. The only thing alleged to be illegal is that campaign money was used to make the payments to Cohen. It's my thinking that is going to be a very difficult thing to prove. No one is denying the money was paid. Proving where that money came from, Trumps personal finances or campaign funds is the problem. No doubt in my mind that Donald trump knew all of this and more. Perhaps he did use campaign funds to pay back Cohen I don't know. Thing is, I don't think there is going to be any way to prove where it came from beyond a shadow of a doubt. And that is the criteria, isn't it?   Beyond a doubt. The big witness is Michael Cohen. Is he credible? Michael Cohen reached a plea deal with prosecutors. He made a plea deal after months of bargaining. He pled guilty to five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a bank, one count of making an unlawful corporate contribution and one count of making an illegal campaign contribution. He did so to avoid years of incarceration. He got three years. He was released a little over a year later. I wonder if he has made another deal in this case?  A chance at redemption perhaps? Maybe a pardon from the President! Stranger things have happened. Or maybe Cohen will just get a monthly payment you know, paying back a debt. 

for posterity

  Occasionally I write a blog and hesitate to publish it. I do so thinking that others may not like what it is I'm saying. Have I explained it enough. To me that is the basis of writing, explanation. I want others to know what is in my mind at the time I am writing. If I have explained it fully surely no one could be upset or offended buy whatever I have written. I don't think I'm offensive. That despite having heard quite the contrary on more than one occasion. But those people just didn't understand what I was saying so I'll place the blame on myself. It is the job of the author to explain the thought. Implication and inference are sometimes confused. That happens frequently these days, it's what I said, but it isn't what I meant. I do try to say exactly what I mean. But after writing my thoughts, reviewing them and sometimes revising them, I may still hesitate. Then I consider my integrity. If I am being honest in my writing, in expressing my thoughts, I should just publish them without questioning any of that. Am I writing for posterity or popularity? I tell myself it is posterity. That was my initial intent and I'm doing my best to remain true to that. I remind myself that whatever I write will remain long after I'm gone, long after any popularity I may enjoy. The only question being, will anyone read it?

 That is basically the same question we all live with. Something everyone wonders about and something everyone wants. Will we be remembered? That's the big question for all of us. I wonder if anyone will read what I have written after I'm gone, will I be remembered. Not being a published author, having written nothing of public note, or gained any sort of notoriety, I really have little expectation that anyone will. I'm aware I'm not writing the great American novel or expressing any philosophical or religious thoughts that are earth shattering or inspiring. I'm aware that the majority of my own family doesn't read these blogs today. Why should I expect anyone in the future to do so? But again, I remind myself, I'm doing this not for myself but for posterity. And I chuckle a bit at that hypocrisy. It's a half-truth and I'm aware of that. I do enjoy receiving comments on what I have written, both good and bad. I do like knowing that some are reading. There is a bit of vanity and self-satisfaction involved in the process. And I expect it is always that way with authors of all types. I don't think it matter what the topic is. Writers write because they feel the need to record their thoughts. It's the need to be remembered.

 I think there is a chance that others, years in the future, may read some of my writings. I say that because of Google and the internet search engines. I have typed in a word and had a link to my blog appear. I had written about the Duggan Brothers bakery company some years ago. If you type Duggan brothers in the search block, boom, there is a link to my blog. A total stranger can now read it. I still occasionally get a random comment from people on that. They somehow discovered that blog so it leaves hope they may find others. It's like they were flipping through the card catalogue and randomly pulled my card. So, yes there is a chance posterity will read my words. It's a comforting thought. I don't have to be popular, that's what I tell myself. I can be discovered later on. Hey, anonymous is quoted often! So perhaps I will be, and people will ask, who? 

 If I am truly writing for posterity, I have to ask just what is posterity? The dictionary says it is all future people. Older definitions say it is your descendants. It is always for the future, however. "Since it is not granted to us to live long, let us transmit to posterity some memorial that we have at least lived." ( E. Joseph Cossman ) Do you know who Cossman was? I certainly didn't until looking him up. I discovered the quote, not the person. Anyway, Cossman was the inventor of the spud gun, an early pioneer of the infomercial. and a multi-millionaire that conducted seminars and lectures. A very successful man. He is quoted because of that success. What I mean is, if he hadn't been wealthy and successful not many would quote him. So not being either of those myself I am doing as he suggested, "transmitting to posterity some memorial that I have lived." I guess all that is left is for that to be received. I have no control over that. Maybe I should have a "business" card passed out at my funeral instead of a memorial card. You know a sort of insurance policy. A reminder. 

allowed

 There is an adage that says integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking. I'd say that is a good summation. We see a lot of virtue signaling going on these days. Ribbons, flags and buttons. Donating to this cause or that, making your monthly contribution through automatic payments so you don't even have to think about that it. I can even wear a tee shirt to show others and inspire them to do the same. Yes, today integrity is making sure others know you are doing the right thing. 

 But more disturbing to me is this idea that by doing whatever you like in public, makes it right. It's the only way I can think to explain the actions of some people these days. Take these parades I've seen on the news. Gay pride, or whatever they call that, when people dressed in leather outfits are leading others dressed as dogs and hitting them with a whip. The public display is supposed to somehow normalize that behavior. Making a public display of deviant behaviors makes it normal? I don't think so. But I can think of no other intent to those displays. Drag queen story hour at the library. This is to benefit the children? I don't think so. I think it is deviant behavior once again on public display in some misguided attempt to have it considered normal human behavior. It isn't! 

 I'm quite aware that people have been engaged in such activities since the beginning of time. I'm quite aware that it occurs in every nation and culture. It still doesn't mean that it is normal or acceptable. The reason all that was in the closet is because it isn't normal or acceptable. It was done when no one was looking, hopefully, so that no one outside that circle would know. Opening the closet door and making it a public spectacle doesn't make it normal. There are activities that should remain private. It's as simple as that. As long as those activities do not involve hurting others in some fashion, or create some public hazard, no one needs to know beyond the participants. Pornography is certainly popular. There is no denying that. I'm sure many people watch that stuff but never admit to doing so. Does that mean we should just put it on regular television or social media sites? Why not, everyone is looking at it. Then no one has to hide that. The reason is, it isn't normal in our society to display such activity. 

 And that's the normal I'm talking about. I don't want that to be the normal thing in this society, in my community or country. Nor do I want guys pretending they are girls, girls pretending to be guys, unisex bathrooms, and an educational system telling my children and grandchildren that stuff is normal. It isn't. It's called gender dysphoria or was until recently, now it's being called transgenderism. It was treatable mental illness not too long ago. Today the "experts" say they are not treating a mental illness they are treating the stress, anxiety and depression caused by this mismatch between what gender they are and what gender they think they are. It's true I'm no expert on any of that, but you are treating a mental illness! The mental illness is what is causing the stress, anxiety and depression. Convincing the person that it is normal, doesn't cure the illness! It may serve to mask that illness in the same way pain medication leaves you feeling great, but it didn't stop the pain or cure the problem. 

 Is normal whatever is allowed? That appears to be the case with man. I suspect that is what caused religion to become a thing in the first place. Our Gods, or whatever forces we wish to believe control human behavior and indeed the fate of man himself, have always provided guidance on what is right. If it is allowed, it is normal.  At different times, in different societies all sorts of things were normal. Holding slaves, beating your children, abusing animals, killing your enemies, robbing, stealing, pillaging, all the normal things. Those things were right? They were normal. If we allow it, it becomes right. Doesn't mean it is though. Just means it is allowed. And there are things that just shouldn't be allowed to be normal. That's my feeling anyway. 

 The LGBTQA+ community, according to a Gallup poll, comprises 7% of the population. That figure has doubled in the last decade. It's becoming the normal thing. Why has that changed? I believe it is simply because it is what is being allowed. It's the new normal, the new thing, it's trendy, and signals to others how progressive you really are. It doesn't hurt that it allows you to channel your base desires either, now that it is alright. Now that it is allowed. Pandoras box and the closet door both served a purpose. Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. 

do you remember

  Every family has those little stories that are told and retold over the years. Whenever the family gets together, sooner or later the story is told. These stories are the little incidences in life that amuse us, mostly they amuse the one telling the tale. The tale usually doesn't involve them however, it will be about someone else. Sometimes embarrassing, sometimes sad, and sometimes just plain silly. There are several that have been told about me in my family. The "little man on the wall" incident rates near the top. My fear when riding the Ferris wheel as a child and a few indiscretions later in life. Stories told again and again, relived, often revised and embellished, but never forgotten. I have written down a few of these family stories but discovered something in doing so. The stories just aren't the same anymore. When those that were there, that participated in some ways aren't there to share the story, the story loses life. It just becomes, at best, an amusing anecdote. When it loses it personality, the story just isn't the same. The story itself becomes lonely. True loneliness is when all that remains are your memories. When the only company you have are those memories and no one to share them with. Each of us will experience that and deal with it in our own way. 

  But as we grow older, we keep creating new memories, ones that we can share with those around us. They may be fewer in number, memories take time to grow, but they are created, nonetheless. Memories do take time to age, to ripen into a story worth repeating. Stories that begin with, do you remember? That is the invocation. The invitation to the others to join in that memory. It never ceases to amaze me how different the tale can be, even from the ones that were there at the time. A different view, a different time or place. But that is the magic of a tale told in the first person, it comes from their view. The way I saw it, it was a tremendous catch, others saw it as lucky. There are times all we remember is our intentions, not what actually happened. With family an explanation may be forthcoming. And sometimes years after the incident, after the story has been told hundreds of times, the motivation is exposed. The reasoning explained. A new twist added to the tale.

 I think what we chose to remember is far more important than what we actually remember. That's my philosophy anyway. It is a choice. You can't change the past, you can't rewrite history, but you can remember whatever you like. That is the key to happiness in my opinion. When my great grandfather passed that was the first funeral I attended. It didn't go well I was overcome with sadness and grief. Still, that isn't what I remember about him, or that funeral. I remember Gramp, as I called him for who he was, and I remember the comfort I was offered by a sister-in-law at his funeral. Yes, that is another family story that was told as I was teased about that. But it isn't how I remember it. It's just a story. See how that works? When we begin with, do you remember, that is what we are asking. How do you see the story. It's great when you all agree on the story, but entertaining when you do not as well. It is the sharing of a common bond that is important, what we feel. It's a visit to the past. It's our world, the family. Outsiders cannot know the story; they are not part of that. 

 The same applies with those friends and acquaintances that we grew up with, attended school together, perhaps were in the service with. Whatever group you belonged to will have those stories that begin with, do you remember. When you are no longer with that group the stories lose their meaning. Then they have to be told in the second person. The word you doesn't appear in that story. And generally speaking, people don't like stories that don't contain the word you. The like to read them, not hear them. History is remembered by those that write it down. But not everyone sees or lives the same history. That becomes an issue. You can see that today especially. Used to be when we were asked, do you remember, we did pretty much remember the history we had been taught. Today there are so many alternative histories that no one can seem to agree. History has become personal, in the first person. History being told from a new perspective. Not so much what we remember, but what we think motivated those actions. You can't remember what you never lived, what you never experienced. In those instances, you only remember what you have been told. What do you remember? 

culture

  The demographics of crime. I keep hearing from the experts how it is caused by poverty, a lack of education and a feeling of hopelessness. Yeah, I can see that. Crime is the easy way out. That's the simple truth about that, it appears to be the easiest way to change your circumstances. Now add in leaders that sympathize with that choice, in some cases being enablers, and how can you expect things to get better. At least here in Maryland there is talk of making it impossible to charge anyone under the age of thirteen with a crime. Does anyone really believe that a child of thirteen, or even younger doesn't understand right from wrong? Maybe I was the exception, but I knew by the time I was five that stealing was wrong, I knew that hitting someone else was wrong, and I knew that shooting someone with a gun was wrong. Yup, I knew those things by the time I was in kindergarten. That isn't to say I didn't try lifting a piece of bubblegum from the 5&10 or hitting someone else when I got mad at them. I did both, but in my defense, I never shot anyone although I had access to shotguns and a rifle. But I suppose that was because I wasn't poor, uneducated and didn't feel hopeless. Either that or I simply had parents, siblings, friends and strangers correcting the error of my ways at every turn. You know it does take a village to raise a child. Hey, I didn't even live in the village! But I'd suggest neighborhoods are pretty much the same in that regard.

 You know it's cliche, but it's also true, you don't really learn to appreciate something until you have to earn it. Whether you earn it through work, or simply doing the right thing even when no one is looking, you gain an appreciation, an understanding of right and wrong and civic responsibility. When the village is involved in shady practices, calling it culture, there should be no surprise when the children behave as they do. It's what they see in the streets and hear in the music. Who are the role models? The gangstas. These are some lyrics these kids are growing up with: "I used to love her, too bad I had to put a slug through her/Dumped her body in the trash like I never knew her/Blood runnin down the gutter into the sewer/Her body stunk for weeks like horse manure" (Esham) And those lyrics are very mild compared to others I read. But I'm told it is a cultural thing that I just don't understand. Yeah, you're right about that, I don't understand why parents would let their children listen to that stuff. But it's what's playin' in the neighborhood. 

 But you're not supposed to talk about that stuff, tell the truth about it. That's just profiling. When people act outside of the law, outside the cultural norms, it does create problems. The problem is for those acting within the law and societal norms. Now declaring those actions as a cultural thing doesn't change the fact that those actions are simply wrong. They can't be excused as cultural expression. That is the excuse, the reasoning behind many social injustices in the past. People of all races kept slaves at different times in history. That was the cultural norm. Only the slaves saw an issue with that. Women couldn't vote for first 93 years of this country's existence. It was the normal thing. But over time that culture changed, evolved to include those groups. It is what was once described as the melting pot. The goal is to establish one culture. That isn't to say other cultures shouldn't exist, be recognized, celebrated or respected. It is saying we can only have one culture in a nation, in this case, the American culture. 

 Do we really want a culture where violence and crime are the normal thing? Where we glorify the thugs and scoff at the lawmakers? A society where you simply appropriate whatever you want from those that earned it. What sort of culture is that? Strangely enough that culture has as its' goal to be included in the very culture they are rebelling against. They proclaim all they want is equality. When they are equal, then they should get a bit more, be recognized and honored for that achievement. And what is the achievement? Adopting the cultural norms of the nation they are living in. But that is what you're not supposed to say. You are not supposed to propose any such theory. Culture begins in the home, that's the bottom line. Want to stop the incidence of crime and violence? That needs to begin at home.

 But there has been resistance to this since the start, the adoption of the American culture. There was a name applied to those that attempted to do so. Uncle Tom. At first it was applied to those folks considered to bow down to their masters. Today it means anyone that appears to betray their culture or heritage. It's a sign of weakness. 

 That's the perception anyway. And that is where the understanding of culture goes off track. Culture changes and evolves over the years. It isn't a fixed thing. The Native American could not live as their ancestors did today. Indeed, I suspect few would choose that lifestyle. Yes, there will be some attempting to live in a teepee and hunt wild game to survive. There are those that would build a log cabin in the wilderness too. I expect they would use a chain saw instead of an axe though. What culture promotes violence and crime? The truth is it isn't a culture at all, it is simply the easy way out. A shortcut to perceived success. Justified by the past and encouraged by the by the present. A cultural thing? I don't think so. 

a safeguard

 I hear that we live in a Democracy. I hear that all the time, especially from those on the left, the Democrats. I get it, it is in the name of their party. The big statement from that party being majority rules! That's the democratic principal. That was certainly the founding principal of that party platform. You know, back in the day. Back then the majority did rule. That's why that party voted against the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution. The white guys were in the majority, most especially the white southern guys. The Democratic party began life as the "common" man party, opposing big government and supporting individual rights. That has certainly changed over time. Yes, at one time the democrats were Republicans. Before the civil war they supported slavery and after slavery opposed civil rights in an effort to retain that southern voting bloc. It's important to understand the Republican party was formed in opposition to the expansion of slavery. Prior to the republican party there was the Whig party and a few other factions. But the Republican party joined those together in opposition to the expansion of slavery. 

 So today the Democrats are always proclaiming it's a democracy and the majority rules. Well, except all of their policies don't go along with that philosophy. The Democrats really just enact legislation that will secure votes. Just as they opposed civil rights to gain the southern vote, that trend continues. Once those former slaves and "colored" folks got the right to vote, the party began pandering to them. Then, just like Forest Gump might say, just like that, the democrats were concerned for their welfare. The Democrats having figured out that they don't really need the majority of Americans, they need the majority of votes. You can see that in action today plainly enough. The ideology of the party has changed. No longer concerned with the common man, they are simply concerned with the retention of power. The common man be damned, it is government that is important, a Democratic government. Those pesky Republicans are actually trying to maintain a Republic! A government for the people, American people.

 The democrats have decided that by supporting every minority group in the nation they can achieve a majority. A majority of votes, not necessarily what is best for the nation, but what is best for their party. The Democrats don't really want the majority vote, they want to rule by the force of the mob. A mob of fifty can overwhelm a peaceful group of one hundred. You know, like a biker gang versus a church choir. And that is how we wound up with laws benefitting three percent of the population, imposing their ideology on our children. That's why there is so much discussion to restrict rights granted by the constitution. Create higher crime rates, increase the poverty level, convince the population that government is the answer and promise relief from the government and presto, you have a democrat. The plan to gain that majority vote is to simply leave the population with no other choice. Make them hungry, poor, and angry. Remove rights, redistribute what others have earned and impose strict regulations on freedom. Once that is accomplished the party can change once again. It can become a dictatorship! Hey, you voted for it! Majority rules. 

 The democrats. The party that believes so much in majority rule that they support every minority. Well at least they find them useful so really not much has changed over the nearly two centuries of their existence. Because you see that's the key. If you can continue to find a use for the minority, you can gain the majority. The only problem is maintaining that control. Once the money runs out it gets to be a problem. Once all the "rights" are granted, once all the money is spent, once the minority has achieved equality what's left to promise? Because, you see, it is very simple really. The minority is not equal to the majority. And that is a simple truth. Majority rules! That's why we have a Republic though, that's the safeguard against a simple democracy. 

Enough

 The question is, is doing it for yourself enough? It is certainly something we are all told. Whenever we get discouraged or down that is the advice our friends and family will give us. Just do it for yourself, it doesn't matter what others think. The important thing is to make yourself happy. That's the underlining message in that. The question is, is that enough? 

 It's a sticky wicket as the saying goes. On the one hand yes, you should please yourself, do what you like. On the other hand, we all have that need for affirmation. No man is an island entire of itself. (John Donne) I believe that to be the truth of the matter. Those that are recluses, loners or anti-social beings often suffer mental issues. They become self-absorbed and lose the ability to relate to others. I believe we all have that need to share. When we share what pleases us, we want others to enjoy it also. If they do not that is a disappointment. Disappointment can lead to discouragement and discouragement to melancholy. 

 The reaction from others has to be genuine for it to be satisfying. It isn't the same when you ask for it. I expect that is one problem extremely wealthy people struggle with. Are those people genuine in their affection for you? I have read many stories about the lifestyle of wealthy people that certainly don't seem like anyone I would care to be around, well unless it is profitable to me that is. Even that has its' limits though and so far, that limit hasn't been tested. Fame and fortune have eluded me somehow, not sure how that happened. 

 Should you modify your behavior to gain favor from others? That is to say engage in activities you don't necessarily enjoy, but love the attention it gains? Virtue signaling is what it has been called in recent years. The wearing of ribbons, flying flags and lending support to all manner of questionable moral or ethical practices. I don't know, but perhaps that is enough for some. I don't know if there is anything wrong with that either. I suspect however that perpetrating a deceit against yourself can't be a good thing. I can't see that as being truly satisfying. Seems to me a bit of resentment would creep into the picture. 

 So that brings us back to the question. Is doing it for yourself enough? I guess the real question should be, should doing it for yourself be enough? My answer is non-committal, sometimes. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. When it is, it is because I was doing that for me. When it isn't, it is because I did not receive the reaction, I believed I would get. The disappointment comes from expectation. I am getting the honest reaction I want, just not the reaction hoped for. That is why others will tell you, just do it for yourself. 

 Well, yeah that does lessen the chance for disappointment, although if we are honest with ourselves, we may still be disappointed. That usually happens when I try to paint a picture or sing a song. I occasionally still try to do those things hoping things have changed, so far, no change.

 Is it the process or the result that is important? I think that is central to answering the question. If you simply enjoy doing whatever it is, just do it, like the Nike people say. I think, for me, it is the result that is important. Whether it solely please me or pleases others I want the result to be pleasing, as it seems like a waste of time if no one enjoys it, or it serves no useful purpose. The question remains, is it enough? 

lessons lost

 Facebook often has meme's and posting asking about the day's gone by. I enjoy those posts as they do remind me of the past. A part of that speaks to my vanity as well, I know this or that. If you are honest with yourself you have to agree with me, we all like to show that we "know" whatever or that we know something that others do not. It's a superiority thing. Makes you feel good. Yesterday I asked if anyone has a darning egg. I'm writing this as I wait to see if I get any response. That question inspired these thoughts about all of that.

 With the darning egg I remembered a time when my dad darned a hole in my pants. I was getting ready to go to church and had put on my good clothes. I came downstairs and dad noticed that hole. Mom was sick at the time, recovering from an operation I found out years later concerned female stuff and no way was I told anything about that! But anyway, Dad told me to take those pants off and he would darn them. I wasn't very old at the time, maybe ten or twelve, but this was something different and unique. Dad was going to do sewing? Well, he did, and I can see that patched area to this day. It was amazing. I asked him years later about how he had come to know how to do that. He just looked at me and said, I figured everyone knew how to do that. He explained that when he was growing up his grandmother kept a basket full of socks and other items that needed darning by her chair. She darned stuff all the time and he had watched her often enough. That made sense to me and nothing more was ever said about that.

 This led me to think about life back in the day. I was thinking that children learned a great deal more from their parents in the past. What I mean is there was little else to do. If you think about it that seems reasonable enough. No video games, no snap-chat, no organized sports and after school activities. I think children tended to learn whatever occupation their parents were engaged in. Children were more engaged in everyday life around the home. Cooking, cleaning, tending to the fire or the animals. Everything it took to keep the household running. Practical skills needed in that particular time and era. 

 I'm thinking that isn't the case today, although I'm certain there are exceptions to the rule, there are always exceptions. Today the exceptions are used as proof. That's why 3% of the population is now dictating policies but that is another topic altogether. I'm thinking that the children are being too distracted these days to really pay attention to what their parents are doing. The result is we are developing a rather clueless society. The reason we are now hearing stuff like "identifying" as whatever, makes you whatever. What was called make believe back in the day. Again, a different topic altogether but I can't help mentioning that. Today it appears the children are learning more from tic-tok and the indoctrination at school than from their parents, or possibly more important, grandparents. I can say I learned a lot of skills from my grandparents as they always had more patience than mom and dad. I also tended to listen to them a bit closer for some reason. I guess it was their age, being that old I just naturally figured they knew a lot of stuff. I heard them correct my parents more than once. 

 I can only speak from my personal experiences, but my parents and grandparents seemed a lot more self-assured than what I'm seeing today. I know that I get called judgmental often enough. Yes, I suppose I am. I learned to exercise good judgement from my parents and grandparents as a matter of fact. Oh, I was told that bible verse about judge not lest ye be judged, heard it all the time. Thing is I was also taught what that meant. It didn't mean just allow everyone to do whatever they liked. No, it was a responsibility on your part to point out the errors. Good friends and good people do that for each other. It was up to them to change their ways or pay the consequences. And yes, the bible is an excellent reference for what is right and wrong. I was also taught just because you can, doesn't mean you should! That was the lesson in discernment. In the Bible judgment is indeed the providence of God but discernment is the responsibility of the people. And just because the bible doesn't say you shouldn't, it also doesn't mean you should. An argument I hear being used a lot today. 

 It all speaks to self reliance. I was often told that God helps those who help themselves. I was told God wasn't going to do it for you, you could ask for his guidance, his help with whatever issue you were having, but you first had to help yourself. God would use his judgement with that! Charity is a gift! You should never expect a gift, not even on your birthday or Christmas. Charity is not an entitlement. Not from your family, your neighbors, your community, your county, state or country! Do not expect charity. You had better be taking care of yourself, because it is no else's job to do that. I don't think that lesson is being taught today. 

 What is being taught? What I'm entitled to. That is the lesson plan these days. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has certainly been redefined in the 21st century. The right to life is now being questioned in the courts. Does the mother have a right to decide that? The father has no say when it comes to that. Criminals, convicted murders are not to be executed because they have a right to life? Yes, I 'd say the right to life has certainly been redefined from what the founding fathers had in mind. Liberty? What is liberty. James Madison said it was liberty of conscience. He was saying liberty is the ability to act upon your own conscience. In other words, the law shouldn't tell you how to act, only what actions are not allowed. Your conscience should be your guide. Of course, it is important to remember that John Adams, his associate, friend and confidant, explained that our constitution was only sufficient for a moral and religious people and was totally inadequate to any other. That was the expectation of Madison and Adams. I suspect many others felt the same way. 

 What about the pursuit of happiness. What does that mean. In means, making a living, providing for your family, and living in harmony within the community. That will provide happiness. The pursuit is in doing what is necessary to secure that. It doesn't include asking for charity or indeed, demanding charity. It doesn't mean that those that have achieved a higher degree of happiness than yourself have to share that happiness with you. No, you have to earn that yourself. Just like Grandma said, God helps those that help themself. That doesn't include helping yourself to what someone else has earned! And that, in my opinion, is where the biggest change has occurred. 

  I learned from my parents and grandparents that true happiness comes from within. It comes with that sense of accomplishment only gained by doing something yourself. Remember when Obama said, "if you got a business, you didn't build that." Much was said about that by both sides of the political aisle. Still, what was the underlining message? You need the help of others to be successful, to find happiness. Others should invest in your happiness. Yes, I would agree that our conscience should impel us to help our neighbors, but that doesn't mean the government should take what you have earned to redistribute it to others either. That's what Madison was talking about. There is no pursuit when you are simply given something. You do learn to appreciate the things you have when you are the one that earned them. It isn't the ability to buy them, or to acquire them through charity, that creates that value. It is the pursuit that is important. Like going fishing, it takes patience, persistence, and a degree of luck. You don't have to catch anything every time but when you do, it's happiness. 

 Well, this is a long-winded post about a simple thing. Sometimes I just get carried away. I'm just concerned about what is being taught and by whom. Family, in my opinion, is the nucleus of society. I see that exploding, breaking apart these days. What is left? Government? That is a scary thought. When we become dependent upon government all is lost. Conscience is the glue that holds us together. It is being dismissed, replaced by some progressive ideology of entitlement. The truth is the world owes you nothing. You owe the world. Seems like that is a lesson lost on many, and not the only one! 

you asked

 The freedom to speak is fundamental to a healthy society. Any attempt to silence that must be fought vigorously. The reason is a fundamental one. To get the grain the chaff must first be removed. There is always a lot more chaff than grain, but it is that grain that sustains us. This is true with speech as well. Speech is the expression of thought. Some thoughts are good, some are not, but it takes both to create a harvest. Discernment is the medium used to distinguish that chaff from the grain. You can't get the grain without having the entire plant! 

 We are all free to think whatever we like. Thoughts are private things. The right to share those thoughts with others is a fundamental one. Whether the others listen or not is up to them. Understand though that when expressing those thoughts, you give rise to emotion. Emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides. For that reason, we should exercise discretion in our speech. It's not a restriction in speech, it's an understanding of human nature. We should be equally aware that emotions may lead others to action. The actions may be favorable to our position or in opposition. One should consider carefully their choice of words, their means of expression before speaking. Expressing an idea shouldn't be found offensive to others, expressing an ideology most likely will. Now that being established, I still fully support your freedom of speech, you can say whatever you like. Your responsibility is to accept the consequences of whatever it is you are saying. 

 In our judicial system we don't have different degrees of guilt, we have different degrees of punishment for guilt. It's an area that is easily confused and misunderstood. Jay walking and committing first degree murder are not equal crimes but you can be equally as guilty of either. It is only the degree of punishment assigned that differentiates the two actions. Premeditated murder is the worst kind, isn't that what the law says. Yes it does, and there are second and third degree murders as well. Regardless of what degree you are convicted of, you are still convicted of murder and as such, a murderer. That's how that works. Our judicial system also has provisions for a crime of passion. Just what is that? We most often think of a love spurned as a crime of passion, I expect simply because of the name. The legal definition is a crime committed in the "heat of passion" or in response to provocation, as opposed to a crime that was premeditated or deliberated. Isn't that the same thing as saying the crime was motivated by emotion? 

 In recent years the term hate speech has been instituted accompanied by legal punishments for hate speech. I'd say that was the same thing as a crime of passion. If you said something to provoke that response, that emotion, it's partly your fault. Isn't that the thinking with crimes of passion. If I shot some guy for being with my wife I'm justified, sorta. Well, in the eye of the law it's understandable anyway. There are provisions in the punishment phase for that. You didn't ask for it. That's the thought process. You can say whatever you like but be aware that you are also responsible for the reaction to that statement. Depending upon the manner in which you express yourself, you may be asking for it. We all know when we are just asking for it, that's why we say it in the first place. We don't need a law to tell us that. Freedom of speech does come with a responsibility. Speech is the vehicle of thought. You are responsible for where the vehicle goes. That is your responsibility. Drive down the wrong road and you just might find yourself in the wrong neighborhood. That's on you, not the people in the neighborhood. My suggestion is to apologize, be polite, and ask for directions. Or better yet, don't go down that road at all. Just remember, when exercising your freedom of speech be careful what you are asking for, you just might get it. You asked for it! 

                                                                            

                                      So, you asked for it! Case dismissed.  

always home

 I wrote a bit about it yesterday, home. Home is the place where we grew up. That's my thinking on it anyway but I'm sure others have a different view or meaning when they speak of home. That home is usually spoken of in the past tense. Home is where the heart is. That's an old adage that expresses a sentiment. It stirs a nostalgic experience for us all. Our thoughts drift to our childhood. But, as I said, that's my experience. I do believe the vast majority of people when asked will speak fondly of that time. Home is a safe place to go even when it is only in our mind. And now having left that home over fifty years ago it seems like such a short period of time that I lived there. The whole incidence of grammar school through graduation from high school passed by almost unnoticed by me. Always too busy thinking about tomorrow and what was to come, something better, something new, something. I had a feeling something was out there, something I just had to find. 

 There was a time when I went back home. It was then I discovered that home wasn't where I had left it. The places were the same, but the people were not. Oh, the old folks were there, a bit older than I remember but still there, familiar faces in the crowd. Many of my childhood friends and classmates had moved on, left home, in search of what was out there. No longer just a school kid, it was different living in a world remembered in childhood, but that world had changed. I hadn't changed, home had. Choices made and circumstances encountered I once again went out looking. I went looking in the same place I had before, the Navy. Finishing that up as a career, I discovered that my professional life was far from over. The thinking while serving being, once I retire. I chuckle today at the naivete of that thought. Another twenty-five years would pass before I retired. My professional life over I just do as I please these days, well, whatever the wife approves anyway. I'm at home. 

 Thoughts of home came to me as I talked to my wife this morning. She has never been to my childhood hometown and grows tired of hearing about it, I'm sure. I never tire of talking about it though. Yesterday morning we were watching the Price is Right. Now it isn't the first time I had seen this as a prize package, but it still amuses me, it's a fabulous vacation in the Hamptons! Yes, my home has become a prize on the price is right. The value of that prize was in excess of 8 thousand dollars. My home is an attraction? Yeah, it's pretty strange to think about. A playground for the wealthy. Well, it is ironic when I really think about it. Home was sold when the price was right, now all that remains is a memory of a time and place. Heritage has become an occupation for some, to add that local flavor. Caretakers of the playground. But it will always be home.