Histories lessons

 Did some reading about the Monroe doctrine yesterday. I remembered a little bit about that from history class all those years ago, you know, back when we weren't apologizing for everything. President James Monroe decided our foreign policy should be, mind your own business. That's pretty much the jest of the doctrine. The United Staes wouldn't interfere with European nations and any European nation attempting to interfere in ours would be considered as aggressors. The two terms of Monroe's presidency was later to be called the era of good feelings. The wars in Europe had subsided a bit, mostly peaceful and the two political parties at the time the Federalists and Democratic Republicans were even getting along fairly well. James Monroe instituted this doctrine because he wanted the United States of America to act independently. We had an army and a Navy, had won our independence, and it was time to stand on our own two feet. America was to grow up! The doctrine worked well for the most part. But as with most things it came to an end because of money and politics, not necessarily in that order. 

 Now this doctrine wasn't an isolationist thing, it was an attempt to delineate a sphere of influence. That is to say, mind your own business and we will mind ours. We could and would engage in trade with all the nations of the world but not interfere in their wars or conflicts. In return those nations were not to interfere in ours. As with all political documents it was interpreted differently over time, new meaning added or subtracted. Following our involvement in WW1 that doctrine was ignored. Well Germany was sinking American merchant ships, so we really had no choice. Then the Japanese attacked, and we had no choice. Then we signed treaties and agreements that left us no choice. And we have been involved in European wars ever since. In fact, it isn't just European wars but the entire globe now. I'm thinking we should have stuck to the Monroe doctrine! Sure, every now and again you would have to put somebody in their place, but we should return to that doctrine immediately afterward. We should have done that instead of financing the recovery of every enemy we ever defeated. Should just have left them in ruins and said, now, mind your own business from here on in.

 And what is our foreign policy today? The Biden administration says their goal is to strengthen alliances with foreign governments that were damaged by the Trump administration. So far, the only thing they have accomplished is evacuating Americans from foreign nations. And I would point out they haven't done that very well. The policy is one of partnership with foreign powers. But Monroe and others like him know the United States should be independent. We should be taking care of own business and stay out of others business. 

 The United States of America has risen to be the leading superpower in the world. How did we achieve that? We did that during WW2 when we mobilized our industrial might. Historians will argue that we began our reign as the dominant superpower in the world in 1898 with the Spanish-American war. This action was supported by the Monroe Doctrine! Yes, that was one reason given for our intervention. The explosion on the battleship Maine is often cited as the reason as well. Well, if the Spanish were responsible for that, and no one knows for certain that they were, it was an act of aggression. They should have been minding their own business. 

 In 1903 Teddy Roosevelt said, "walk softly and carry a big stick." What did he mean? The United States will negotiate peacefully but are prepared to defend ourselves! You could say that lead to an arms race and perhaps that is correct. If we hadn't rebuilt everyone, we defeated I don't think there would be any doubt about who has the biggest stick! Imagine if we just concentrated all our resources on Americans. We did that at one time, a long time ago. We defeated the major force in the world at that time. We defeated the bloody British and took control of our land. We built a Republic like no other seen in the world. We rose to the top! Now it is estimated that we will lose that number one spot by 2030 to Asian countries. That's because those Asian countries will control the purse strings. Those that control the money have the power. That's how that works. France and Spain helped us during the revolution, we couldn't have done it without their financial assistance. We had the will but not the way. And where are we today financially? All I can say is, we had best start taking care of our own business and let the others take care of theirs. 

comfort

  I realize I'm out of touch. I seldom listen to the radio anymore and there isn't much on television that interests me. I'm talking about new shows that is, there are plenty of documentaries and biographies to entertain me. So, what I'm saying is, I'm out of touch. 

 I was just wondering if they are any bands out there. I surely haven't heard about any making a big splash like the Beatles or the Stones. Are groups like that even a thing anymore? I have heard of a few solo artists but mostly for their actions, not their singing. They are controversial for some reason. Usually, it is something sexual, that always sells tickets. I occasionally hear about a tribute group but know nothing about the current scene. I'm not even hearing about those boy bands/groups or whatever they called themselves. Saw a few of them on an oldie show one day, guess they are all old now. And I'm talking about all genres of music. The last big country group I heard about was the Zac Brown band. That was fifteen years ago. Times sure flies. 

 I remember thinking my parents were stuck in the past, they were square. Now I'm the square one, not only square I'd say I was a cube. I know the music and artists I like to listen to, and that's who I listen to. I don't listen to the radio much anymore for no particular reason. I suppose it is simply because I can listen to whatever music I want wherever I am. I know about using Bluetooth. Yes, I'm up on that technology. I'm aware of Spotify, I use the free version and just tough it out with the advertisements. I can listen for thirty seconds to save a monthly fee. That and regular radio, even FM, doesn't always come in that great. It sure was an improvement over that AM radio I used to listen to as a kid. The radio in my car just doesn't work all that great, even with a signal booster installed. I was wondering about that the other day. I had heard on the news that the mars rover and how it receives and sends signals no problem. Why can't I hear a radio station less than forty miles away? My cell phone never seems to have an issue with that. Well, I suppose there is a scientific reason for all of that. 

 Am I stuck in the past? No, I'm not. It's a choice. I'm beginning to understand just why my parents and grandparents felt the way they did. It is far more important to be comfortable than to be on the edge. Yes, it is better to just relax, enjoy what you like and stop thinking that everything is going to get better. In general, that isn't happening. Hasn't happened with music that much I'm certain of. They don't write songs like they used to, and they don't have singers like they used to. Oh, they have performers alright, I won't deny that. But I miss the singers, not the performance. Yes, back in the day the person singing was the entertaining part of the show. 

 Dancing died when Disco hit the scene! Yes, that's my opinion on that. I haven't heard of any dance craze since that time and so can only assume Disco killed dance. And now it's all rainbows and unicorns! Things haven't gotten better. Merle Haggard died seven years ago. Seven years without Merle to write us a song. I have to ask, just as he did, "Are the good times really over for good?" In the closing verse of that song, he gives us this advice, "Stop rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell, Stand up for the flag and lets all ring the liberty bell" Yes, Merle was a prophet alright. It is what needs to be done. Perhaps the good times aren't over for good after all. Perhaps all we need to do is go back to what brought us here in the first place. Kind of get in touch with ourselves, and our past. The past wasn't all bad! At least we had good music and used to dance. 

                                                                             Life's lessons aren't always new. Often they're the same old worn-out truths offering us greater depths of wisdom and understanding. — Richelle E. Goodrich

what it is

  I keep hearing stories on television about mental health. I hear about all the programs and proposals offered to help people cope. These stories are often in-between stories about trans people or those that self-identifying as something other than what they really are. The messages are conflicting in my eyes. I'm upset because you said something that offended me. I should then be provided with counseling, professional help in coping with that. That's after you are punished in some way for saying it in the first place. No mental help for you though, you are simply wrong! That's the way it is even when the simple truth is told. If you were a man yesterday, you are still a man today. That's a simple fact. I get called names for pointing that fact out. I'm supposed to ignore that and change your pronoun. I won't apologize for that. In fact, the professionals have a name for it, Cognitive Dissonance. It's something that has been studied in psychological circles and theories abound. Basically, what it boils down to is believing in something that simply isn't true. You know it isn't true, but you still believe it, like I'm a guy but really, I'm a girl. I feel like I'm a girl in contradiction to all the evidence to the contrary. 

  I'm no phycologist or psychiatrist, I just sound like one on Facebook. I'm Ok, You're Ok. But that isn't the truth all the time, there are times when I'm OK and you're not! I recognize delusional thinking and pipe dreams. I'm aware that changing pronouns will only enable your cognitive dissonance to flourish. Not wishing to be an enabler I will not participate in the charade. Now those folks need mental help from a professional. Cognitive Dissonance can be a serious problem. It's true the official handbook of mental disorders doesn't list cognitive dissonance as a disorder, but it can lead to mental disorders such as depression, dysphoria and anxiety. That happens when the cognitive dissonance is frequent and reenforced by others. Yes, we all feel a bit of cognitive dissonance from time to time, it is perfectly normal. When we refuse to recognize that dissonance for what it is that's when we get into trouble.

 Now with all the ads and awareness on mental health these days what symptoms are the most frequently mentioned? Depression and anxiety top the list. No one is mentioning dysphoria because that would cause a bit of an issue. Gender dysphoria can be a mental disorder. That's what the handbook says anyway. If that dysphoria causes you discomfort, depression, and to withdraw from society then it's a problem. Seems to me we have now decided if you can't beat them, join them. Is that really helping the individual with the problem? We will all just pretend, go along with that, and that makes everything ok?   Interesting how we are now attempting to treat everyday life, living, with an array of "medications" designed to reduce these feelings of cognitive dissonance. It's all a part of this "immediate gratification" society we find ourselves in today. Everything has to happen right now! There is no getting over it, that takes too much time and effort, now we just medicate it! If you can't feel it, it isn't real. If that's what you feel, it must be real. And that is what we are doing right now. Upset at work, feeling a bit of anxiety or stress? There are meds for that, and some companies provide mental health days as well. Are you nervous around other people? There is a medication for that. Anytime you aren't feeling just right, it's a mental problem. The truth is it always has been a mental problem. It's called being human. 

 The more we medicate human emotions the more problems we create. In the past we relied on something else, something we called maturing. As we grew up, we began to recognize these periods of cognitive dissonance. We learned to get over it, as the saying goes. We learned how to cope with these contradictory feelings. I didn't feel like it, I didn't even see the need for it, but I made my bed in the morning. I was polite to others. I had times when I felt like others just didn't like me, didn't want to be my friend, teased me, bullied me and called me names. I learned how to deal with all of that without medications! Nor did anyone in authority insist others comply with my wants or desires. Maturing took time, it didn't happen overnight with a pill. For some that maturity never really arrived, we all have friends like that. 

  Keep telling everyone they have a mental problem, and they will have a mental problem. It's good for business I suppose, a convenient excuse for your choices and behaviors. I can't help it! I need counseling and probably some kind of medication. And you can't question any of that! No, you can never question that and any actions you take had best support that. That is to say, give me time off from work for my mental health, provide me with a soothing and relaxing workspace, allow me to decorate my cubicle or play music whatever it takes. You can't tell me how to dress or how to groom myself. That may interfere with my mental wellbeing. You must comply with this, I'm taking medication! It's a mental thing. Life is a mental thing! And some of you have problems, big problems. But they could be cured. All you have to do is grow up! You can begin by accepting reality. It is what it is! If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, it's a duck. Doesn't matter if the duck identifies as an Eagle, it's still a duck. 

dignified?

 The city of Baltimore is tearing down what used to be affordable housing units. Now you can call these units by a variety of names depending upon your outlook. Originally, they were affordable housing. Apartments built to provide shelter for those that otherwise could not afford a place to live. Those living there however began to view them differently. Just a place to live with no interest in maintaining that property it's fair to say many tenants simply allowed conditions to worsen. Eventually they began calling this housing, the projects. The project was to provide housing, but the meaning of that term came to mean something entirely different. And today as that building is being torn down a city official gave a speech saying how they were going to erase the racist buildings of the past and restore the dignity to those that live in affordable housing. You see the apartments in the past just weren't good enough. New apartments with all the modern amenities of the very finest quality are what is required. The basic necessities aren't nearly enough. The whole concept of building affordable housing was just racist! It was an affront to the dignity of those people. 

 Now those living in the neighborhood, in those apartments created the environment. It is the residents that allowed certain behaviors to proliferate, indeed encouraging those behaviors. No outside sources came into those buildings and destroyed anything. No outside sources came into the building to distribute illegal substances. No, all that was done internally. Then once the place had become a run-down, dangerous environment that even the residents themselves began to fear, it was called the hood. In the neighborhood. That's what the meaning is. Thing is, the residents created that hood and they alone are responsible for that. You can make all the excuses you want about the landlords not fixing things, ignoring the tenants, but the fact remains, it is the residents that make the neighborhood. It's like my grandmother would say, you can be dirt poor but that's no reason your clothes can't be clean, your home clean and you have good manners. Personal pride and dignity cost nothing! 

 Now affordable housing is defined as housing made affordable to those with a median income. Generally speaking, that means your cost of housing shouldn't exceed 30% of your income. That's the figure most banks use when approving mortgages. If you go by what the government says is the average income for an American today that cost would be 1688 a month. If your rent is higher than that you should get affordable housing. But that doesn't work at the bank, does it? No, ideals and reality are quite different. The bank will not give you a mortgage greater than 1/3 of your income. 

 In the affordable housing model, the rents are usually paid, subsidized by some sort of voucher system. In short taking from those that have, to give to those that don't have. And now we have decided that those that don't have should have the very best! Just because you can't afford the best, doesn't mean you shouldn't get the best. No instead everyone gets the same. There's a name for that, it's called socialism. 

 Not a bad system if you don't have anything, not so good if you want to improve yourself. That's because not only do you have to improve yourself you have to continually provide that upgrade to those behind you. They must get what you get! You need to make twice as much. Its charity taken to a new level. Codified charity! In the church it is called a tithe. 10% is a tithe. Interesting to note is that no matter how much you make the first 10,000 dollars is taxed at 10%. A tithe to the government. Most of us are paying a good deal more than 10% however. That's to make up for those that aren't paying anything. Of course, sometimes, like right now for instance, the government needs to borrow more money to pay for all this charity. But then again, we wouldn't want to offend anyone's dignity. 

  Now the push is on for 15 an hour to be the minimum wage. That equates to 31,200 dollars before taxes. That means your housing cost, to be affordable, should be 780 dollars a month if you paid no taxes at all. The average cost of a two-bedroom home today is about 100,000 dollars. If you have the very finest credit rating and live in the best neighborhood your mortgage could be 550 a month on that 100,000 dollar loan. Few will qualify for that loan. According to government sources the average hourly wage is $27.77. Currently the federal government has set the min wage at $7.25. That's 14,500 a year. That means your housing cost should be 362 a month. But the government is also saying your housing should be as good as those making 67,000 a year. The plan is to build that and have those people pay for it. Seems fair enough doesn't it. And everyone maintains their dignity. 

that's progress

 In the city of Baltimore success is being touted. The number of homicides is down! The number of survivors is up! The program, safe streets, is a big success. Now it's true more people are being shot, but more are surviving, so that indicates the program is working. That's what the mayor is saying in his latest press conference. Yes, thirty juveniles have been shot so far this year, more than at any other time but more are surviving. That is where the focus needs to be. When questioned about the funding of the program, for accountability for where the funds are being used, the response is, we'll get back to you. So far this year there have been 87 homicides. I couldn't find the data for this year for survivors but last year there were 688 people that suffered non-fatal gunshot wounds. The claim is that the number of non-fatal shootings is up this year, a success. The criminals are less accurate or the guns less lethal, I haven't read a report on that. But that is what is being stressed. The program is working, more people are getting shot but more people are surviving that shooting. Yes, it's cause for celebration.

 The Maryland state assembly passed legislation making juveniles 14 and under exempt from prosecution for crimes. That's right, juveniles can no longer be charged criminally for crimes. Since it passed the incidence of juveniles involved in shootings has risen sharply. The mayor and police commissioner are decrying this rise saying we need to do more to save the children. They just don't understand why this is happening. When questioned about the new legislation and whether the drug dealers and others were now recruiting juveniles to do their crimes, they both acted surprised. It was suggested that perhaps this would explain the rise in juveniles involved in all of that. But neither the mayor nor the police commissioner will even say outright that there are gangs operating within the city. They refuse to call them gangs. You can only think it has to be political.

  The bottom line is very simple to understand. The criminals are running the city. They have that power because the police and the legislature refuse to enforce the laws that are already on the books. The gangs are running the streets, the ones they tout as "safe streets" locations aren't exempt to crime. Safe streets are being given 5 million dollars in petty cash with no accountability for where or how the money is spent. That isn't the total cost of the program, that is just what is in the petty cash till. There are currently ten locations so if distributed equally that is a half million dollars each, with no one accountable for its' expenditure. My guess is it is buying all the protection it can afford. 

 Look I'm just saying it's a real shame when we start counting survivors as a success. The casualties are mentioned, vigils held for them, there is much talk of getting the guns off the streets. The children, oh my god the children are getting shot. They are innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. That's what is reported. The last juvenile to be shot was wearing an ankle bracelet! This juvenile had been in involved in an auto-theft. But, it really wasn't the juvenile's fault, he was with the older kids, and they just dragged him along. Despite his ankle monitor he was out in the streets involved with some illegal activity when he was shot. Not the fault of Childs parent, not the fault of the criminals, it was the fault of the gun that shot him. A child shot dead in the streets and sadly it is as common as a traffic accident these days. Remember, the legislature passed the law, juveniles can't be charged with crimes anymore. And now the incidence of juveniles involved in criminal activity has soared. But it's just a coincidence you know. 

 I guess when we only have the wounded, no fatalities from shootings, complete success will have been achieved. That is certainly the message I'm hearing. Shootings are up but fatalities are down, the program is working. Now that's real progress. 

  

It still is

  So, Washington state has passed legislation enabling kids to run away from home and be protected under the law. They will then receive gender affirming care without the consent of their parents! Yes, the state has decided they have control of your children, not you. You have no parental rights when the child wants to change their gender! This sounds like something out of a novel! You had better wake up folks! 

 First, we should examine just what gender affirming care really is. What is it that we are affirming? We are now going to say, if that is what you feel, that is what is real. And you can feel that at any age, and we will agree with you. Not only will we agree with you, but we will also do everything we can to make that appear the reality to others as well. We will do that by injecting hormones, chemicals, or whatever into your body to create biological changes. We will also perform surgical procedures to modify your physical appearance. And most importantly we will tell you all of that is perfectly normal! You simply got the wrong assignment at birth, there isn't anything wrong with you. You're fine! It's the 99.5% of the population that doesn't feel the way you do that is wrong! They have no reason to judge you otherwise. 

 The long and short of that is gender affirming care is just another term for enabling mental illness. Instead of trying to treat that illness we will simply say, it's fine. Using that logic a kleptomaniac and a serial killer shouldn't be treated either, it's the way they feel. And we can't tell others how to feel can we? No, we should affirm their feelings, enable and empower them. We can't even tell them that it is wrong, we shouldn't judge. Then they would get the impression that we hate them! And remember, love is love, no matter what you love. Using that logic bestiality should be tolerated and supported fully. It's in my DNA. I did some reading on that subject yesterday. There are scientists/biologists saying just that. They have observed differences in DNA that may be causing the mental condition known as gender dysphoria. Yes, that's what they call it when think you are one thing but think you might be another. Dysphoria means you are unhappy, unsatisfied or frustrated. That's what it is. 

 But now it has been decided that when your gender is involved, the reaction should be, we will change the reality to suit your feelings. Wish that was the reaction when I feel unhappy that I'm not a millionaire. I should get the money that way, I'm cured! Hey, I'm just not satisfied and therefore you should do everything in your power to satisfy me. If it is what I feel, it is real! That's what the experts are saying now. That happened in 2012 when the experts removed "gender identity disorder" from the handbook and replaced it with "gender dysphoria." Now it isn't a disorder anymore. See how that works? Ignore the reality and affirm the fantasy. It's the easiest way to deal with that. Doesn't matter to the therapist one bit, he/she will receive their fees no matter what. It is easier to just reassure everyone, tell them they are fine, rather than confront them with the truth. Placating is far less stressful for the therapist. Dealing with people that are angry or upset is a hassle. Just tell'em they are fine. 

 Washington state has decided that children, minors, can now just run away from home when they don't get what they want. In doing so they will be protected and given what they want regardless of what their parents say. Washington has declared itself a sanctuary state for transgender children. Think about that for a minute. A sanctuary state for runaway children that are confused about their gender. This state will affirm their feelings and provide "care?" Is that really care? What happens when these children change their mind in a year or two? Is Washington going to change them back? And just who is paying for all of this care. I'm not just thinking about this so-called gender affirming care, I'm talking about feeding, clothing, educating and housing all these children. And what happens if they decide they don't like what the state is saying to them? They don't like Mom and Dad telling them what gender they really are, so they run away. Can they run away from Washington state if they don't like what they are saying? Then who is responsible for those children? Aren't they wards of the state? 

  If it is what I feel, it is real. That's the new rule. It negates any other rule, law, feeling, hunch, notion or impression. It can't be judged. That what it is. It's what I feel, it is real. Well yeah okay it is real to you. I get that, I understand that completely. I have feelings too and they are real to me. Sometimes however reality can be confusing. I really feel like I should win the lottery. I can give you a long list of reasons I should. I've purchased the tickets and yet I still haven't won. I'm not satisfied! I really feel like I should win. The reality is, I haven't. My tickets prove that. 99.5% of the population are not confused about their gender. I think we need to go with that reality. You can feel differently, but you can't change the reality. Yes, it may be what you feel but it still isn't real. Doesn't have a thing to do with love, with affirmation, with hate, with anything else at all. It's simply the truth. Doesn't matter what you feel. You can't change the truth. Best you can do is feel like it isn't the truth. It still is. 

listen up

 When I was in the Navy, I was selected to become a recruiter. Well, I applied and was selected anyway. So off to school I go to learn the trade. A part of that training involves the phycology of the sale. For two weeks a professor of psychology instructed us. He said, after this class you will never hear a salesman the same way. That has certainly proven to be true. I don't hear a sales pitch the same way, I am far more skeptical of any claims being made. I also don't hear promises, just possibilities. Yes, there is a big difference between the two.

 I listen to the advertisements on the television and chuckle, laugh and sometimes just blurt things out. Things like, what? One company that advertises frequently is for same day shower/bath installation. They say they will transform your old, outdated bath to a new state of the art masterpiece in just one day. You go to work and when you get home, presto, a new bath. What I get a laugh out of is the promise that they can do that for as little as 99 dollars a month! Yes, just 99 dollars a month will get this peace of mind, convenient and stylish bath. Call now, for free installation, half-off materials and low monthly payments! Act fast, this offer won't last. That's when I say, what offer? 99 a month for how many months? There is no mention of that anywhere in the ad. No mention of the interest charged or amount of downpayment required. Just call today and you can get it all for 99 a month. But it's not a promise, it's a possibility. 

 I think that class I took should be taught in every school in the country. The techniques used to sell the product are the same no matter what you're selling. The only trick is in learning what the buyer wants to hear. If you use phrases like, you can, people will hear I will. It isn't what you said, it's what they hear. In the Navy you can be a pilot. It's a true statement, if you qualify you can become a pilot. Most don't hear the, if you qualify part. It's a phrase used often by those lawyers on television as well. If you can't lift ten pounds regularity or stand on your feet all day you may qualify for disability! Call today! It's the possibility that is being presented, not a promise that you will receive disability. On television they can't initiate the first part of the sales pitch and so jump right to the possibility. 

 In person the sale always begins with conversation. The conversation is designed to learn your interests and determine what you want to hear. Are you interested in the product or the price? Makes a big difference in the sales approach. On television or radio, they start with the second step of the sale, curiosity. Are you afraid when stepping into that bath, is the edge of the tub too high, do you feel nervous? If, in your mind you answer yes, and that's what they are counting on, you need to do something about it. The solution is easy, just give us a call. In one day, for as low as 99 dollars a month, you can have peace of mind. Or you can have a brand-new car, maintenance included for free for two years! You can get a new smile in one day too! Call now for a free dental screening, x-rays and financing is available! It will change your life! It's a possibility. 

 There is another ploy I always find amusing. It's the limited time offer. With these you have to act fast before the product is all gone. We have manufactured all that we can and there will be no more. You must act now! In fact, there is a strict limit of two per caller because we are running out. Hey, wouldn't want anyone to miss out, so we will restrict our own sales to ensure you get the chance to purchase this product. Yes I get it, you wouldn't want to sell everything you have to just one person, you would much rather sell two at a time, spread it out over time, but not too much time, so I have to act fast, operators are standing by. 

 I have heard many times how the recruiter lied to me. I just laugh because I know that it isn't true. Well, most of the time it isn't anyway, I wouldn't say some recruiters haven't made promises they couldn't keep. Still, the truth is most of the time all the candidate hears is what they want to hear. If you qualify is heard as, I'm qualified. If there is an available opening is heard as, there is an opening. You can is heard as you will. You can get a college degree while in the service, completely free. That's a true statement. Will you? Now that is up to you, you have to apply, to qualify, and be accepted. You have to request the courses, complete the courses and submit the completed paperwork. But, yes you can do it. I didn't say you would! Promises and possibilities. 

 There is an old joke that is told in the Navy. A Navy ensign on his first cruise is looking pretty sad, pretty disappointed, and is down in the dumps. The captain of the ship being concerned for his crew asks the young ensign what's the matter. The ensign explains to the Captain that when he was in the academy he was told he would see the world. The captain says, and you have son. The ensign responds with but we have been at sea for six months! The captain explains that the world is 71% water. He then says to the ensign, if you wanted to see the land you should have joined the army. The promise was kept but the ensign heard something different. He just wasn't listening. 

I don't

  So, I saw this article in the New York Times asking whether a person should demand a prenuptial agreement. Now this being the New York Times the majority of the comments insisted that of course you should. I read down the comments, explanations and justifications for insisting upon a prenup. One explanation I found particularity interesting. That one explained that a prenuptial agreement was a business arrangement, whereas a marriage contract was not, that was simply an emotional contract. It went on to explain that you have to take care of business first, before anything else. Sure sounded like a caring, loving person to me. Remove all emotion from that contract! My reaction, my comment, was simply, plan for failure and that is what you will most likely get. That, of course, ignited a flurry of comments aimed at me. It's so easy to rile those Times people up. I know, it's a guilty amusement for me and I really shouldn't poke the animals in the zoo. I just can't help it. Perhaps I need counseling. LOL, no I don't, it's hilarious. 

 What I find so amusing is these folks reading the Times always seem to believe they are so smart, so progressive, so cutting edge and mature. The truth is most of them sound like children with their complaints. Their feelings are hurt and it's an injustice. These people believe inanimate objects are attacking them! They also believe criminals aren't at fault, it's the system. They can't help being criminals, they should be empowered not punished. Many also think there are more than two genders! Some even think gender is a fluid state, you just can't predict what you will be at any given time. Yes, they do. And marriage is fluid too. You can marry the same gender, a different gender, or someone without a gender altogether. You could marry all three at once! But whatever you do, get a prenuptial agreement because it's just business. 

 Yes, marriage is a commitment! What you need to understand however is that it should be a commitment with a clause. Don't confuse that with commitment for a cause, it's just business and you should have a clause in there to protect your interests! Promises mean little when you want to dissolve the partnership! Promises are just the things you say, not necessarily the things you do. You can always take them back! Not so with a prenuptial agreement. That document provides you with security, protecting your assets and interests. It's the only mature thing to do. 

 I did notice that not one person commenting mentioned the religious aspect of marriage. Everyone was in full support of that prenup without mention of the promise. Now we promise before God and "this company" to love the other person forever. That promise should be given with the full expectation that you will. If you have any doubts, any misgivings at all, don't give it. That is the only prenuptial agreement you should have. Why? Because a promise is a promise, that's why. You either believe the person or you don't. You buy life insurance knowing you will die one day, no clause in there for any exception. 

 If you don't die you don't get the money. Truth is, you will never get that money. When you get married you promise is it till the day one of you dies. It isn't a contractual agreement for a specified period of time. It's true that sometimes one or both parties wish to terminate the marriage before they die. If that is the case, you have to be willing to surrender your interest in that agreement. In business there are no guarantees of success. If your business fails, you don't get your money back. Works that way in marriage too! For me demanding a prenuptial agreement is like insisting on buying a life insurance policy. I'll get the money when you die! Only it means I'll get the money if I decide to break my promise to you or you break yours to me. It's just business. Well like I said, plan for failure and that is most likely what you will get. 

 Can you make a promise legally enforceable? You could say that is exactly what a legal contract is. It's nothing more than a promise made that is supported by the law. Attorneys instead of God. It doesn't matter what you said in that church, at that altar, before that company. What matters is what was written in the prenuptial agreement. That is what is enforceable and binding. Emotions don't matter, well unless your feelings get hurt and you feel marginalized, but that prenuptial sure does! That's the most important part of this contract we call marriage. You could say a marriage license is just an addendum to the prenup. Very romantic, very committed. I promise. Well, until I don't. 

 

it's too easy

  Every day it seems I hear about something else that is just crazy. In the news yesterday they were reporting on the theft of automobiles. Hyundais and Kias are being stolen because it is apparently easy to hot wire them. That's what we used to call that anyway. Steering wheel locks tied to the ignition switch weren't mandatory on cars until 1998. Prior to that you could simply hot wire the car and drive away. Things was the Attorneys general for 17 states and the district of Columbia weren't declaring those vehicles unsafe. But that's what happened yesterday. In a letter to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration this coalition requested a recall of all those vehicles by Hyundai and Kia because they are too easy to steal. Being too easy to steal makes them unsafe. In a brief moment of lucidity and common sense the NHTSA said, no. 

 You see these attorneys general are concerned for the safety of criminals. Their ability to easily steal these cars are leading to accidents as they attempt to evade the police. If the cars weren't so easy to steal, no one would steal them. Same logic as if I don't have a gun, I can't shoot it. Same logic as, if I'm no longer pregnant I won't have a baby. There was no mention of penalties for the criminals that are stealing these vehicles. Many of the thefts are just the tic-tok people answering a challenge. They have seen the instructions on that platform and give it a try. I suppose tic-tok should be held accountable for that as well. After all, if they didn't tell you how you wouldn't have done it. But the problem lies with the vehicles. They aren't being made theft proof. Manufacturers should be held accountable for someone stealing your car. They should be compelled to do everything in their power to prevent that. I see a class action lawsuit coming! 

 On the news they were showing the local police departments handing out free steering wheel locks to owners of those cars. Yes, they are free courtesy of the taxpayers. If you purchased one of those Kias or Hyundais over the last ten years or so your fellow citizens will provide you with a steering wheel locking device. That is addition to paying for my own vehicle. You're welcome. At least one Chief of Police was on that show saying that Hyundai and Kia should provide locks. It is their fault the cars are being stolen because the locks provided aren't good enough. As for me I would point out one simple fact; the purpose of locks is to keep honest people, honest. That was a lesson I learned while serving in the Navy. I expect the same lesson was learned by anyone in any branch of the armed forces, and anyone that ever lived in a communal housing situation. Locks merely keep the honest folks honest and do little to stop a thief. I've known a few characters that could open a lock using a pic and just where to strike a combination lock to pop it open as well. For most locks a bolt cutter will solve the problem easily enough. You can steal a car with an ignition steering wheel lock without a lot of difficulty as well. Just takes a slide hammer. 

 As I said all this is just crazy. The automobile manufacturer being blamed because people are stealing their cars. Hyundai and Kia just happened to be the target of the online tic-tok challengers. It could have just as easily been any other manufacturers. The cars in question still use a key type of ignition rather than a push button. This is what is being identified as the "security" risk. This is why those companies should be held accountable for the theft of those vehicles. It's just too easy and you are tempting the criminals, challenging them in fact, and they can't be blamed. They should be using electronic means to prevent those thefts. It's a safety hazard! Yup, criminals stealing cars create a safety hazard. Not the fault of the criminals though, it's the fault of the manufacturers. If McDonalds didn't sell hamburgers I wouldn't get fat! That's a safety hazard too. Why it is going to raise the price of health care in this country. That's why you should pay for my healthcare on a universal plan. Hey, it's not my fault. McDonalds makes it too easy for me to get a burger. It's probably that online app. It's just too easy. 

optimism

 I filed for my Facebook compensation as part of that class action lawsuit. Facebook shared my data with a third party without my permission. This has already been established, litigated and a settlement reached. The settlement was for 725 million dollars! Users have until August to file their claim. It's free to file and easy as well. There is a link on Facebook to do just that. After filling it out and submitting that form, I feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Justice is going to be served! I chose to receive a prepaid gift card although other choices are available, including direct deposit to your checking account. So now, I'm just sitting back and waiting on my settlement. Finally, my ship is going to come in. I can't see the mast on the horizon just yet but I'm sure it is there. 

 I did a little reading about this settlement. It was agreed that the lawyers could receive up to 25% of that amount for their legal services. That would leave about 520 million to be divided up among the claimants. The amount of the settlement is dependent upon the number of claims filed. I figured if only 5.2 million people file, I should get a hundred dollars! I didn't see any figures on the number of attorneys involved but they will have to divide up $181,250,000. My thought is they will get a great deal more than I will. I wonder if they also get to file a claim and receive compensation for the data breach? Double dipping.

 Now at first reading and without much thought the settlement says claimants, anyone that used Facebook in the last sixteen years is eligible to file. After attorney's fees, that leaves about 520 million dollars. Now the population of the United States is 332.28 million. Shouldn't everyone in the country get over a million dollars? Well, even more because you can't count anyone under the age of 16, and not everyone used Facebook. So, let's say only 2/3 of the population are eligible. That would be 346 million people. Still over a million apiece. But that isn't how the math really works. There are 10,000 one hundreds in a million. A million dollars will be expended for every 10,000 claims. It will take a total of five million two hundred thousand claims for the settlement to be a hundred dollars. How many people used Facebook over the last sixteen years, and how many will fill out a claim? How many fraudulent claims may be filed? Maybe I should lower my expectations. 

 All of this is just punitive in nature. Who really benefits and makes the money? It certainly isn't the common man that was using Facebook. They are the ones that were damaged, their data sold to third parties without their consent. How much money did Facebook make off of the sale of that data? Was it more than 725 million dollars? If so, they are still ahead of the game and the lawyers are raking it in. But justice has been served and the crumbs will be served to the starving masses. I am anticipating my prepaid card before the end of the year. I'll be sure to include that in my income tax return. Facebook, Meta or whatever they call themselves can write it all off as a business expense, a red mark on the ledger sheet, should help them with their taxes. I just love how all this works. You do have to admire the system that enables all of that. It's brilliant. I feel empowered! Just waiting on my ship to come in. Peace of mind, that's what it is, peace of mind. 

gaining control

 The best way to maintain control of any population is by having a large percentage of relatively uneducated, unskilled and poor individuals. This is the reason for the current open border policy. That policy has little to do with rights, with compassion or empathy. That policy concerns control. Also, the reason the push is on to give those "migrants" "refugees" and uneducated, unskilled laborers the right to vote! When your political ideology requires a cheap labor pool, one willing to simply comply with the agenda because they have no choice, that's what you do. It has been the model for centuries. It is only the method of obtaining that labor pool that changed. Where chains were once the primary tools, that has been replaced with promises. 

 Despite the constant barrage, the ongoing narrative that the system itself is just a racist policy, there has been a dramatic change in society. Beginning in the 1960's there has been legislation addressing all of the inequity and injustices of the past. There are no "legal" roadblocks to anyone of any race, creed or religion to upward social mobility. Yes, they are still those in positions of power that harbor prejudicial and discriminatory feelings. There will always be such people in the world. You cannot legislate how human beings think or feel. We hear the cries of "the first" this or that as though that in and of itself was the accomplishment. In my view that simply distracts from the accomplishment. It comes off as, in spite of. 

 Black families comprise about 14% of the population. Of those 2% are millionaires. White families comprise about 71% of the population. Of those about 15% are millionaires. In less than seventy years the black community has risen considerably. Yes, yes there is a lot more to be done. My point is simply if you look at the big picture control of that demographic is beginning to slip through the fingers of those that have historically controlled that. Why? They are educated, skilled and no longer dependent! Blacks have historically voted Democratic. The reasons for that can be debated but it simply remains as a fact. I'd suggest that has continued simply because it's what has been expected. My father voted democrat, so I'll vote democrat. Works that way with Republicans too. In more recent years however there has been a shift. More blacks have begun to vote for the Republican party. The majority of black people are conservatives! Yes, that's the simple truth of it. The traditional black family are conservative in their views. Strong on religion, family and hard work. I know, it isn't the image we see. That's because it is important to the democratic narrative that the poor, underprivileged, mistreated, uneducated and unskilled black man just struggling to survive image be continued. In that way, they can "help." Can't have black people feeling that they are really equal can we? No, you can't do that on your own. That's the promise, has always been the promise and always will be the promise. But that's all it will ever be, a promise. 

 But now there is a problem. We are running out of poor, uneducated, mistreated, and unskilled black people. Turns out those people are successful after all, despite all the attempts to prevent that. Time to bring in more, uneducated, unskilled, laborer's dependent upon their employer. These mostly unskilled and uneducated folks will work and do as they are told because they have no other choice! It must be remembered the objective is not to create a utopian society, it is to enrich yourself! That's what the democrats want, have always wanted, and continue to drool over that prospect. In fact, they get quite jealous of those that are successful in business. They are quite jealous of wealth altogether. That should be redistributed to those that haven't accomplished anything. Really, they just want control of the purse strings. 

 It is only when you have sole control over the purse strings that you have full control of the people. That's what tyranny is all about, total control. You can rebrand that in any number of ways, but it will remain the same thing. One obstacle is paying for the promises. You do have to pay up on some of those promises to keep control. People will only believe for so long before making demands. The tricky part is not giving too much. You have to give just enough to satisfy the need. In the past it was the denial of certain tools. You couldn't be taught to read or write because you might learn something we don't want you to know. Then you couldn't vote because you may not vote for us! But all that changed over time. New methods need to be developed to keep up with the times. First, we need to disarm these citizens! Then we need control of the money. Maybe we can do that through electronic means. We'll have to eliminate cash first though. They are working on that, don't be fooled into thinking they are not. Of course, if we can cause enough civil unrest martial law could be implemented. It's a tricky situation to be sure. We have to look to the leadership of the military; will they be cooperative? 

 Control is the objective. In order to grasp complete control, the middle class needs to be eliminated. You can't have a middle class interfering with things. There can only be those that have and those that have not. Keeping the have nots dependent upon those that have is that key. Yes, it is a simple thing! Not easy to achieve or maintain but what is required. Communism, fascism and socialism do not have a middle class as part of those societies. You are either a part of the ruling class or you are not. All those governments made promises to the people in order to establish that government. In some cases, it was established by brute force and in others it was far more insidious. Consider Nazi Germany and all the promises Hitler made to the people. The vast majority where all for it, sounded like a great idea until the plan was known. Remember the German people voted Hitler into office! With a direct democratic election Hitler received almost 14 million votes and became Chancelor. He took complete control from there. 

 Be careful what you vote for. That is the lesson you should learn from history. Promises made by governments usually aren't what they seem. That's why our government doesn't promise you anything. It was recognized that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It wasn't promised to you, you have to earn that yourself. Our government does provide guarantees. Those guarantees are spelled out in our constitution. All amendments to that constitution are part of the constitution. Some folks seemed to be confused by that. A guarantee and a promise aren't the same thing! In the constitution "the people" means each and every individual citizen. The supreme court agreed on that when upholding the second amendment, especially the part that reads, 'the right of the people". That means everyone! It doesn't mean you are promised a gun, just that you are guaranteed the right to own one. Another guarantee is spelled out plainly:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. 

 Remember I started out talking about all the migrants. They are going to be given the vote. Who do you think they will vote for? If you think this isn't part of the overall plan you really have your head in the sand. Remember there are fifteen appointed positions in the executive branch of government. It's called the cabinet. Then we have the house and the senate. Control of those houses is of primary importance we all know that. And of course, the judicial branch. Those judges are appointed as well. The struggle for control is divided along those three lines, just as it was designed to do. How to gain control? You do it through the vote. 

WTH

  I'm still hearing about Bud light and the big controversy. Apparently, I am supposed to be boycotting that product. My beer drinking days are in the past now, but I was never a fan of any light beer in the first place. Truth be told I was never much of a Budweiser fan. My friends and I used to call that the skull buster for the headache it left behind. I never paid any attention to who was making it, why they made it or what they believed when making it. I do wonder why they decided to put a trans person on their cans, is this person lost? Was it placed there instead of the milk carton? I just don't get it. How anyone could think that would increase sales is beyond me. According to the data I have read about 1.9% of the adult population identify as trans. So how many of those would be beer drinkers, light beer drinkers at that? Without any surveys, polls or data on that I'm guessing it wouldn't be a very large market. Maybe the thinking was to provide a means for Bud light drinkers to virtue signal their support. Is there marketing research that shows those folks, the Bud light crowd, would be in support? Apparently not from the reaction I'm hearing about. 

 I'm certainly no expert in retail or advertising, I have no interest or experience in any of that. All I have is about fifty years of experience. In my twenty years in the Navy, I was exposed to many people that were beer drinkers, avid fans of the "suds" in fact. I did notice that certain brands appealed to certain people. I noticed the country folk, the good old boys usually favored Budweiser. That was the "in beer" for those times anyway. Lesser known and appreciated beers were Schaefer and Pabst Blue ribbon. Light beers weren't favored by the men! It was a perception thing and still is. Those drinking Heinken or Coors were making a statement too, they were the progressive crowd, the enlightened. Really it is all about fads and what is cool today. In the thirty years after my naval service I have noticed that Budweiser appeared to remain the popular choice with the macho crowd. As I said, I'm no expert on any of this but I'm thinking it still is. So why put the picture of a Trans person on the cans? It's a mystery to me.

 Will I boycott the product? I don't buy that product anyway, so my answer is no. Would I boycott the product? No, it isn't going to change anything of any great significance. It might get that advertising campaign stopped, the picture removed, but it isn't going to change the thinking that put it there in the first place. You're not going to put Anheuser-Busch out of business. They have been in business for 160 years and operate twelve breweries. They survived prohibition! You not buying a bud light isn't going to affect them that much, just a bump in the road. It sure has drawn attention to them and as Barnum said, all publicity is good publicity. Everyone is talking about Bud light. Yeah, there are those shooting the cans, blowing them up or whatever, those making a statement. My thinking is those same folks will get over it soon enough when their thirst builds. The NFL is still in business aren't they, still selling tee shirts and all sorts of merchandise. Boycott, what boycott, we got that settled didn't we. Yeah, you got that settled alright. 

 I just wonder how that managed to get on those cans in the first place. It isn't one person that decides about any of that. There are several departments each with a department head that has to approve this stuff. Okay maybe the president of the corporation doesn't have to be involved but I'm sure a bunch of other executives must be. So just how did someone convince all these people that this would be a good idea? How was that supposed to sell the product? If presented to me I would have immediately said, no! Not because you want to put a trans person on the can, but because I don't think there are that many trans people drinking Budweiser. There aren't that many trans people in the country. It is estimated there are 1.6 million trans people in the country. That's not a very large market. So, no, we are not putting a picture of a trans person on the can. It just might upset some folks too! No, our beer is for everyone and that's why we aren't putting any picture of some trans tic-tok influencer on our products. It's just business, it's what we do. We are in business to sell beer. Amazing to me that it got through that chain and made it to market. WTH 

it's the system

 Where do we draw the line between constitutional rights and parental rights? Do parents have a right to enforce justice as both judge and jury? Historically that is the way we view that. Government should only intervene when abuse takes place. Conversely parents were held accountable for the actions of their children. But I'm seeing a shift in this social construct, at least in the cities I am. I watch the news, hearing about all the crime, the juveniles running wild, and how there is little that can be done. Granted I'm hearing about the city of Baltimore more often than not, but my feeling is this is happening in all the major cities of America. 

 Now in Baltimore they are currently talking about enforcing curfew laws. This in response to a spike in juvenile homicides. Juveniles shooting each other! Children of all ages are being caught in the crossfire and some children are engaging in that fire. The big hesitation in enforcing these laws however is the concern for the children's constitutional rights. There are attorneys informing the Mayor, the Police Commissioner and the parents that children have a constitutional right to be on the street at any time of the day or night. Any infringement on that, without the declaration of martial law, would be a violation of their constitutional rights. My question is, do children, juveniles, those under the age to vote have such a right? Where do we draw that line? 

 Are parents responsible for the actions of their children? Our legal system certainly says they are. Well, the system addresses criminal activities anyway, you are responsible for any financial losses caused by your children. Juveniles can be incarcerated as well but that is always a last resort. Today's thinking is that doing so just encourages them to become career criminals and isn't an effective deterrent to further criminal misbehavior. All it does is give them street cred. Today we are thinking we can simply reform them by talking to them. The wisdom of spare the rod and spoil the children being relegated to folklore. Tolerance being the watchword today, tolerance and forgiveness without punishment. It's a lack of accountability. 

 I don't understand why the parents aren't being held to account for those juveniles being on the streets. Why isn't that child neglect? I've heard of parents being prosecuted for having what has been called, "latch key" children. Children left at home, instructed to not unlock the door, allow anyone in or leave the premises until that parent returned. The intent, no matter how misguided, is an attempt to keep those children safe. Yet, parents that allow juveniles out on city streets after ten o'clock or even later are being told they cannot restrict their children without violating the children's constitutional rights? Law enforcement is being told the same thing. Last weekend in Baltimore a very large crowd of juveniles assembled at the inner harbor, causing a great disturbance, disrupting traffic and creating a general feeling of unrest, of apprehension and fear. The response from law enforcement? They have a constitutional right to assemble. You can't just disperse a large group of juveniles for being juveniles. No one detained, no one held accountable for anything. Oh, the Mayor did ask the parents to please ask their children not to do that.

 I don't have any answer to this problem. For me it falls under the category of trying to close the barn door after the horse is out. It's too late to do much about it beside round up the horse. These juveniles have to be taken into some form of custody, detained until their parents/guardians or some responsible adult comes for them. There has to be accountability! It's not an easy fix, maybe it can't be fixed, but something has to be done. You can't really place blame on the kids, it is the parents' responsibility. Kids will generally do whatever is allowed, that's the nature of kids. Kids will generally try to see just how much they can get away with. Kids want to be cool, to fit in, to be noticed. It's called growing up. A great deal of this problem stems from that fact alone, too many kids having kids. And a system of entitlement and dependence that supports that.

 The absence of accountability coupled with a system of reward and support. No need to grow up, to become a responsible adult, I can just keep on partying, doing whatever I want to do, it's not my fault. I have a constitutional right to all of this. Government has no right to tell me how to raise my children, I'm not responsible for what my children do because they have a constitutional right to do that. It's freedom! And don't forget, they're just kids, they don't know any better. Not their fault, not my fault, it's the fault of the system. The system that enables all of this. 

being compensated

 Heard on the news this morning the tax filing deadline has been extended until tomorrow. The reason being the 15th fell on a Saturday and today is Emancipation Day in DC. It's a holiday. Now I admit that is the first I have heard of that, the closest thing I've heard about is Juneteenth. So off to Google and Wikipedia to learn a bit about this. On April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Compensation Act freeing about 900 slaves. This only applied to the District of Columbia. The "owners" were to be compensated for the loss of their slaves and would be paid an average of 300 dollars for each one. This wasn't very popular with anyone but those that were freed. The slave owners felt like the government was cheating them as their slaves were far more valuable than that. Those that had never owned slaves felt like they shouldn't have to pay for them with their taxes! Those being freed however were never offered any compensation whatsoever. In practice they were granted an indenture. This indenture afforded them protection from being forced to relocate, having their families separated and protection under the law against crimes committed against them. They were semi-free, as an indenture was seen as a step toward freedom altogether. This Emancipation Compensation Act was presented to the other slave holding states still in the union but was rejected. 

 As we all know it was December 6, 1865 when the 13th amendment to the constitution was ratified officially ending slavery in the United States of America. If we use the date of 1776 as the beginning of America is took 89 years for us to completely abolish that practice. A veritable blink of the eye when compared to other nations in the world. Back in 2021 President Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act making June 19 a national holiday. June 19, 1865, is when General Granger issued general order #3 declaring all the slaves in Texas to be free. Of course, this wasn't recognized by the Confederacy. The north hadn't won the war yet! It wasn't officially ended until August 20th 1866! Yes, Lee had surrendered his army back in 1865 but that wasn't the official end of the war. Then in 2005 the DC Compensated Emancipation Day Act was passed making that day an official holiday in the district. It isn't a federal holiday. It could be argued that slavery wasn't officially ended in the United States until 1868 when the confederate states were readmitted to the union! A historical fact often ignored. In fact, Georgia wasn't readmitted until July of 1870. 

  I've always wondered why June 19, called Juneteenth, was chosen as the official day of celebration. This general order issued by a Union General didn't actually free anyone. It was no different that the Emancipation Proclamation. That proclamation freed all the slaves right? No, it stated all the slaves in the confederacy were now free. Remember there were four states where slaves were still legal to own until 1865! The Confederate States considered themselves an independent nation and as such felt they were not subject to any laws or proclamations made by the northern states. Had the confederacy won that war none of those proclamations would even be remembered today. But that was chosen as the national holiday. It just seems to me that December the 6th would have been a better choice as that is the actual day slavery was abolished throughout the land. All I'm saying is no one holding slaves in Texas freed their slaves because that General said so. Those slaves were freed by force, by union troops. Still, they weren't officially freedmen until December the 6th, 1865. 

 And now I just realized a holiday has been established celebrating what? When the slave owners would be compensated for owning slaves? In 1862 Lincoln signed that compensation package into law. All slaves were to be freed and the government would compensate you for your loss. Those being freed got nothing. So, you were kidnapped, held as a slave, forced to work for your "owner" and when those "owners" are forced to let you go, they get compensated? Yeah, that's a real government operation alright. But today, we have decided to celebrate that with a holiday? Seems a bit strange to me. 

 Well, you can't go back and rewrite history, relive it or change it in any way. Compensation was paid although in my opinion to the wrong party. That doesn't mean reparations should be paid today. That isn't going to do a thing for the past, for the people involved in all of that, one hundred and sixty one years ago. The government has taken property from citizens before, paying the "fair" market value, as compensation. The government deciding what is fair of course. Do I have a claim to that? The government took my families property in 1865 for a military installation. My family was paid twenty-five dollars, but the property was worth much more. Do I have a claim to that today? They should have gotten fifty! Interest on fifty dollars for one hundred and sixty years adjusted for inflation I should get a good sum as reparation, shouldn't I? 

 I guess Juneteenth and Emancipation Day are a form of compensation. A psychological compensation for the wrongs of the past. It is the final compensation. There is nothing more to be done about any of that. Sorry. In the end that is all any of us can offer, an apology. Enjoy the holiday as best you can and remember what it is you're celebrating. 

testing the principle

  It's the principle of the thing. How often do we hear that as the explanation for actions taken? I've used that myself on many occasions. It isn't aways an easy thing to do, stick to your principles, others not understanding that. Others would have you abandon your principles and adopt theirs. I get that I'm the same way. Principles are something you believe to be fundamentally true. Principles are the rules for conduct. Our principles direct what we do, how we do it, and why we do it, no matter what it is. Principles without purpose are worthless things, empty promises. For that reason, we should examine closely what principles we adopt. The primary principle for me is honesty. You have to remain honest in all things. There are no exceptions to that rule. Even white lies are lies! I try to apply the principle if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all. The only issue there is deciding when what I'm saying will do any good or not. I'm thinking if I adhered strictly to that rule, I'd be a pretty quiet man. Anyone that knows me knows, I'm not quiet. Some blame that on me being a "know it all", their words not mine, but I don't know it all, I just have a lot of opinions. I feel obligated to offer my opinion, it's the principle of the thing. Everyone should be listened to, me included. That's being inclusive. Anything else is just selective inclusivity. 

 For each situation we face in life we have a principle. A great deal of that is learned behaviors. We have learned from our parents, siblings, friends, acquaintances and experiences in life. No one principle applies in every situation. All of that falls into the realm of ethics and morality. The principle is the foundation, morality and ethics are the actions. Now those that believe in the redistribution of wealth. believe everyone should have the same thing. That's the principle. Their ethics say, that can be accomplished by taking from those that have and giving it to those that don't. Theft is justified to satisfy a principle. The principle should be charity in that situation. Others giving freely of their excess to help their fellow man. All of us practice the charity principle to varying degrees. We even have a name for those that practice that principle, we call them philanthropists. Now government is business and serves a different function. Philanthropy and business are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Business is conducted to benefit the one owning the business, philanthropy is to the benefit of others. The distinction needs to be made clear. Government is concerned with everyone, not select groups. Philanthropy may center on a specific group or be in general. You can't legislate charity or philanthropy. That isn't a principle of business.

 Standing on principle. It is something everyone admires in another until that principle is in contrast to their own. Our greatest heroes and role models are based on that. Rosa Parks sat on the bus believing in her principle, four college students sat at the Woolworths lunch counter in North Carolina, Patrick Henry said, Give me Liberty or Give me Death, all were standing on principles they believed in. Are all principles correct? Of course, they aren't. At least not all principles all the time. The white lie is evidence of that. When standing on a principle no longer serves a good purpose, it is time to set that aside. Still the abandonment of principle for the sake of peace alone, is not sufficient reason. This is happening today in America. We are allowing the minority to force the abandonment of principle for the sake of the minority alone. It serves no purpose to the greater good of all. Even the most complex of problems will be solved applying a simple principle. In our most advanced computers, even those utilizing artificial intelligence, rely on a simple principle. In the computer it is zero's and one's. It's right and wrong. Right isn't always right and wrong isn't always wrong but rather part of a principle. It is one or the other. It is never something in-between. Man, invented ethics and morality for that. 

 Yes, men standing on principle have created as much chaos as they have good. Any understanding of history will bear that out. Principle created the greatest societies as well as the evilest. Principle needs to be tested against reality. Perhaps never before in history has there been such a need for that in any country as the one we live in today. The reality is black and white, hot and cold, new and old, up and down. All the areas between those realities are measured by man, guided by principle. Principle needs to be tested by reality. If our principles are causing general unrest, they need to be reviewed. Perhaps principal needs to be altered. But we mustn't fail into the trap of changing our principals in order to accommodate fantasy. Principle is the foundation to change. Just changing everything to suit the current situation, to calm those that are upset by the principle, isn't doing anything at all. What is the reality? Most children don't want to eat their vegetables, take a bath or do homework but it is best that they do. The principle is plain enough, doing the right thing. Kids don't like it but that is the principle, and we shouldn't change that. That's the reality. 

finishing the story

  Sometimes I realize I'm trying to save memories only I remember. That is a simple truth but one I don't want to accept. This is true of all of us to a greater or lesser degree. In years past when families stayed together, often sharing the family home for generations, those memories were kept alive and passed from generation to generation. It was accomplished through firsthand accounts, family stories told. This is becoming less common today. In my case I have stories, pictures, and some old artifacts. Yes, they are artifacts. The person that created those artifacts have long since been gone, unknow to me. Some were unknown to my parents and grandparents. The artifacts remain, however. My wish is that these artifacts live on passed to the next generation for safekeeping. My memory of them will be lost one day, replaced by a new one. That memory may be simply, grandpa had this in his house. The how and why of it may not be known. 

 Artifacts are those things made by people. Usually with some historical or cultural interest. I'd question items mass produced as being a true artifact, things like a barbie doll or a Sony Walkman. I'm thinking more about the things made by hand that have survived over the decades or even centuries in some cases. I have crocheted and knitted objects made by my mother. Those are artifacts. I have a scale rug loom made by my great Uncle Fred for his sister, an artifact. Artifacts are tangible memories. We often produce an artifact without the realization of that, without the intent that it should become so. For me, those are the most important ones. Artifacts hold more value than relics. I wonder why that is. But we think of those in different ways. Relics are things just thought of as old. Perhaps that is where barbie dolls and Walkman's fit into the dialogue. They are relics of the past. 

 When I think of trying to save my memories, those things only I remember, it does seem like a waste of time. What enjoyment, what value or worth can they hold to others? I'm thinking nothing more than an amusing anecdote or bit of family history. An amusement. Am I preserving history? That seems a bit presumptuous of me. 

 History is recorded by the victors. My telling of history will be compared to whatever the current narrative being presented at the time. Consider what is happening with history today. The removal of statues of once revered figures in history being replaced. Some of our founding fathers and other prominent figures in history now described as racists and misogynists. Today you hear the Land of the Free was stolen from the native peoples, taken by deceit, by broken promises and the quest for wealth! Were once we were taught it was a yearning to be free, today it is just a selfish desire to control. My view of history, my telling of it is already at odds with younger generations. Ask me about what happened at Kent State and then read a current history book about that. The story is different. Ask me why we were involved in the Vietnam war, my response will be different than what most will say. 

 Was the generation of my parents the greatest generation? In the context of American history, I believe that argument could be supported. Raised during the great depression they rose to conquer the world. Following WW2 America did become the leading power in the world. We had demonstrated our power, our dominance on the world stage. We truly became the first superpower! Yes, that was accomplished by my parents' generation. 

 My generation have been called the boomers. What have our contributions been? I'd say mostly in the area of civil rights. We protested the war in Vietnam. We rejected the ideals of our parents, expanding our minds. And today we boomers are looked upon as relics of a time gone by. What great accomplishment will the boomer generation claim? The fall of the Berlin wall? The normalization of homosexuality and gay marriages? Making wars on a smaller scale? Did Archie Bunker free the world of racism and bigotry? History will record all of that. I will be included in that history and become a part of it whether deserved or not. Which side of history is being presented at the moment? Look to the heroes of the day to see that past. Even heroes don't last forever. Neither do memories. Still, I keep trying to save them for future generations to ponder. Some days I feel like Don Quixote must have felt. Other days I understand that sometimes it is better to just walk alone rather than with the crowd. Unlike Don Quixote however, I'm unwilling to surrender, to give up and concede my beliefs. That's not how my story will end. 

being influenced

 Have you heard about social media companies being sued for children using them? Yes, a class action lawsuit is being pushed forward blaming the companies for targeting children with dangerous content. These companies should take steps to protect the children. No mention of parents being held accountable for the kids using these platforms though, it's the companies fault. This whole class action lawsuit thing just looks like a legal attempt to censor and control media. It isn't being proposed by the government exactly but is being supported by our judicial system if allowed to proceed. What follows? The government begins to control content. They have to because no one is controlling the children. The parents aren't responsible for that usage therefore the "state" should be. It's what's best for the children. Sounds like a familiar narrative, doesn't it? It's for safety. It is being proposed that special permission would have to be granted to children to use social media. Just how you would go about that wasn't explained. Having identification to vote is just racist and unjust so how are we to verify age before allowing access to Facebook? Wouldn't having to provide proof be unfair? And just who controls that? And let's be clear about this proposal. It isn't that these people want the children barred completely from using social media, they want the content to be controlled! You can only post this or that, whatever is approved by? And there is the heart of the matter. Who will control content? And not just content, how that content is presented, by what methods. 

 You know it's a funny thing because a great deal of these proposed restrictions was already in place years ago. But there were those that challenged all of that in the courts claiming censorship. If the people that want to sue Facebook and others today for the content of their platforms were around in years past, we may not have television today! Television was poisoning the minds of our children, the boob tube! A phrase coined to describe how our children were being dumbed down by watching too much television. Boob tube takes on a new meaning these days with the content on regular scheduled programming! Consider the content on television today as compared to fifty years ago. The difference is stark and should be alarming, But it all happened just a little at a time. It happened in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and our rights! 

 The government has no business restricting any of that! But, we can sure sue those that provide it! If my children are watching that stuff, it is their fault! If they didn't provide it, they couldn't watch it. Yes they have an absolute right to broadcast that, we will defend that right to the death, but we will sue you if my children watch. The same applies to gun manufacturers. If your gun is used to harm someone else I can sue you for that, if you hadn't made the gun, no one could have used it! Now if drag queens are giving a show at the children's library that is their absolute right to do so! If you don't want your children to see that don't take them to the library. That seems to be a special category. Can I take my children to the library and then sue that library for the drag queen show? No, I can't do that! It's my fault for taking the kids to the library. 

 Really what all this is about is morality and ethics. That was always the job of the parents to teach their children. That was the purpose of religious instruction and the teaching of civic responsibility. It is about doing what is best for the majority. But parents aren't accountable for their children's actions anymore, it's not their fault. The government will now decide upon all of that. And remember our Constitution has separated church from state for that very reason! We can't have any religions teaching our children any of that! Only government can dictate what is moral and ethical. Consider what is now being allowed in the public domain, on main street, in our schools and pre-schools today. So, the new plan, the progressive approach is to litigate moral and ethical practices. The judge will decide what is best! Never mind what the parents allow, pay attention to what is being provided. If a child cuts their finger with a knife, it is the fault of the manufacturer! They should have provided a safety device to prevent that. 

 Well, all the ills of the world are being created by these social media platforms. These platforms are influencing the youth! And we all know about influencers! If isn't some guy that pretends he is a teenage girl drinking Bud light, it's the Russians influencing our elections! Why I remember when my mom or dad would tell me, stay away from that kid, he's a bad influence! They didn't sue the other kid though, it was up to me to avoid that. Today we need to control the influencers without censoring the influencers. They should still be free to say whatever they want, do whatever they want without restriction. And we can sue them for that, it isn't censorship, it's accountability. Those social media companies are making money off of attracting users! They are influencing people! 

it's a binary thing

 I had someone tell me my time is running out, I'm getting old, and will soon be gone. That was in response to a debate being held on current events/issues. My old-fashioned ideals and ideas had to go, it's a new day. It's a new world where things aren't binary, there are always several options, several choices, depending. It's always based on an arbitrary set of values. You can't have a fixed system of morality or ethics, it all depends. That's the problem with religions, they have set values for those things. That's the problem with the justice system, you can't punish everyone the same for committing the same crime. It all depends. Take capital punishment as an example. Just because someone kills another person deliberately and without remorse of any kind that's no reason to execute them. Why that isn't right. But if a woman gets pregnant it's a choice to terminate the baby. You see, it all depends. 

 Well, this person is right about one thing anyway, I'm getting older. I would remind that person they are too, and their time is coming as well. Neither of us know when that will be however so I'm guessing that individual is just speculating, playing the odds. Doesn't bother me in the least, I'm aware of time and mortality. I buy lottery tickets occasionally and I know those odds, but hope springs eternal, as the poet said. I still have hope for the future that the Republic will endure. The odds are stacked against that however as history has shown that a republic generally lasts about two hundred and fifty years. It could be argued that our republic only lasted one hundred and sixty nine years from 1776 to 1945. Some experts would now classify us an empire. But that is another topic altogether. (Is the USA Still a Republic? | The Pavellas Perspective) It's a never-ending cycle of change. I'm aware of where I am in the cycle. There isn't much I can do to change that. I was amused by that statement though. Yup, I'm going to die someday, maybe soon. It could happen. It's a binary thing, you are either alive or dead. There really aren't any other choices. Either you want a republic, or you don't. The people will decide. Or will they? Not when the government begins to tell them what they can and cannot say. Not when that same government begins to rewrite the rules to favor themselves. The very first step is to disarm the citizens. Then the real changes can begin in earnest, when there is nothing, you can do about it. You are dependent upon the government. When the middle class has been eliminated all that is left is the ruling class and the poor. Which one will you be? It all depends. 

 

taking it back

 One hundred and sixty-three years ago today confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter beginning the civil war. It wasn't unexpected as tensions had been building. The Democratic party was in shambles at that time, divided mostly on the issue of slavery. Today we hear it was about states' rights. That is what the Democrats would have history record as the cause, but that isn't the true cause at all. No, it was the holding of slaves that divided that party. The only rights some were concerned with was the right to own another human being! They all agreed that they should be able to do that, it was just the acquisition, trading, sale and treatment of those individuals was that being questioned. Their position was that each state had a right to decide upon that. The argument centering around the fact that the constitution doesn't say they can't, so that means they can. The same argument being used today in many cases. The Democrats were concerned with rights, their rights, not the rights of slaves or republicans! The southern states had in fact violated the rights of other states on a regular basis. It wasn't about rights; it was about property.

 The southern states seceded after Lincoln won the election. There reasoning was that they had agreed to the ratification of the constitution in 1789 and could therefore rescind that approval as well. They figured they could just take it back. A common tactic still employed today. The southern aristocrats and politicians were concerned with the abolishment of slavery. Interesting to note is that Lincoln never said he was going to do that. Lincoln was anti-slavery no doubt about that, he called the practice immoral, and he worked to abolish it altogether, but his official stance was to simply prevent the spread of slavery to other states. He knew the outright abolishment of slavery would lead to civil war. He felt that slavery, as an institution would collapse on its' own. We will never know because the southern states decided to start that civil war. 

 Today the Democrats are working diligently to remove rights granted by the constitution. They are using the same logic they have always used, if it doesn't say I can't, that means I can. Now as for the things that it says I can do, that I have a guaranteed right to, they have an explanation for that as well. I only had that right guaranteed to me two hundred and thirty-four years ago, they don't count today! The Democrats simply want to take that part back, write something new. Same thing they tried to do in 1860. States rights? No, it is about individual rights in the democrat's playbook. In the beginning of the democratic party, what was called Democratic-Republicans, they believed the constitution was to be strictly adhered too. Government must only do what the constitution allows. Unless the constitution specifically gave that power to the Congress, congress can do nothing. The Federalists on the other hand felt quite differently. The big argument was, as it still is, about money and the economy. The Federalists believed the economy should be based in trade and merchants where the Democratic-Republicans favored an agricultural society. It was the wealthy vs the middle class. It still is. 

 Slavery was central to agriculture at that time. We all know that. Machinery was just starting to replace laborers. I believe Lincoln was correct that slavery would be abolished at some point, once the profitability had been removed. We are seeing that today with Kiosks replacing workers. When it is no longer profitable for the retailer to hire a cashier, the cashier is no longer needed. Funny how today it is the Democrats that are insisting upon supporting those that contribute the least to the economy. What they are really trying to support is their control over a population, just as they did in 1860. Some ideologies never change all that much. It has been said that the parties flip-flopped. 

 Well, the Democrats certainly did. Now always wanting to give a new meaning to the constitution, rewrite it, and trample on the rights guaranteed in that document. Control is slipping away, and they are getting desperate. It happens when those you wish to control get freedom. All you can do at that point is convince those that are free that they can't make it on their own. That and bring in as many supporters as you can by whatever means necessary. Yeah, they aren't slaves exactly, but they can be controlled with promises. They will accept dependence for the promise of something better. It is the same playbook, just with different rules. We'll rewrite whatever rules get in the way! We'll say it is for the children, that always gets people worked up. The method of control isn't as important as having that control. It's about what I want. I will trample everyone else underfoot to get my way. The only rights to be concerned about are my rights! Guaranteed rights? Only for as long as I decide that guarantee applies. I can always take it back. Yeah, I know, I promised, but that was yesterday.

it's choice

 Original sin or human nature? Something I have thought about every now and gain. Being a person that thinks about such things I have had different thoughts on the matter. When I was little, I just took the Sunday school teachers word for it. I don't recall asking too many questions about any of that, I had the feeling that was frowned upon. This is what you will believe and that's it! That's how I remember Sunday school anyway. You certainly didn't question the Minister. The Reverend Samuel Davis was the authority when it came to anything like that, whatever he said was the truth. I have to admit that I really don't know what his position on original sin was having never asked him directly. The Episcopal church certainly believes we are all born with original sin. That's the reason we get baptized in the first place. I was baptized as an infant, just in case, as it was later explained to me by my mother. Confirmation came later on, after receiving training and instruction. Then I could receive Holy Communion.

 But as to whether we are born with sin or not is the question at hand. Currently my feeling is that we are not.  If we are indeed born in the image of God, I don't see how that could be. God doesn't have any sin. Also, all sin (wrongdoing) is subjective to the society in which you live. An infant couldn't have done anything wrong. Children born out of wedlock, children conceived without the desire to have a child, take the blame for the actions of those that created them. That is often the case, but the baby isn't the one that did anything wrong. The original sin was Adams' disobedience. That's the Christian tradition anyway, it's what the Bible says happened. God having given free will to Adam and Eve (mankind) allowed Adam to make the choice. He chose to sin. That was his choice. We are all born with that choice. What we choose to do will be influenced by our environment. 

 Now is has always been known that there is nature and natures laws. At least that is how James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson and others wrote about that. Unalienable rights, truths, that never change. It's an awareness of what is right and wrong. It is a natural part of the human psyche. It is an individual thing. Other humans will attempt to influence that your entire life. That is accomplished in two ways, government and religion. The aim of both is to control behaviors. The threat of punishment is the deterrent. The removal of deterrence empowers wrongdoing. And that is what I think is at the heart of the matter. It is far easier to just remove the deterrence than to obey the law. All actions can be rationalized if you really try. In religion it is the removal of sin, and in government the removal of deterrence. It boils down to what is allowed. It boils down to choice. We aren't born sinners; we aren't born to sin, but we will all make that choice. Some more than others. 

 That leaves the question however, do we require baptism to be forgiven for our sins? It requires a commitment is my thinking on all of that. Baptism is an outward display of that commitment. Virtue signaling? Perhaps it is, but then again, perhaps we need a symbol, a constant reminder. I think it is a choice.