how it works

  So, the supreme court has decided that it is illegal to discriminate based on race. It only took the court 45 years to arrive at that conclusion. It's true that it took eighty years and a civil war to pass legislation affirming that right the first time. We call that the 14th amendment, heavily opposed by the confederate states led by the Democratic party. But the 14th amendment got ratified. The law now said, it is illegal to discriminate based on race. Stayed that way until 1965 when Johnson issued an executive order hailed as a landmark in civil rights. Yes, the Democrats again managed to say, it is fine to discriminate based on race, in fact, we should be discriminating based on race it's only fair! Another Democrat, Jimmy Carter was in office when that executive order became law. Again, hailed as a great step forward. It took the Democrats 97 years to reverse the 14th amendment, at least in principle. Discrimination is the law! 

 Here it is forty five years later and the court has issued their opinion. It is illegal to discriminate based on race. The fact is it is just as illegal to discriminate in favor of one group as it is to discriminate against one group. It is all based in one simple thing, equality. Equality means equal, all the same, one isn't greater or less than the other. There are no exceptions to that. It applies in all situations. It isn't affirmative action when it discriminates against others! 

 What is affirmative action? Some have called it positive discrimination. Yes, mostly called that by the ones receiving the benefit of that discrimination. What it does is give an advantage or preference to a specific group based on race. Was affirmative action ever required? Yes, you would have to say it was. But society changes, social attitudes change, and we move forward. It took a civil war to get the 14th amendment. Part of that was the requirement by those southern states to ratify that amendment before they would be allowed back into the union. Yes, it was an affirmative action plan beginning in 1864, treat blacks equally or you will not be readmitted to the union. Those Democrats have been bitter about that ever since. But, as I said, times changes, attitudes change, and we move forward. Now the Democrats really need that democratic vote. They are now the ones protesting this decision. Why? Because it will cost then votes that's why. Can't have "those" people believing they are equal now, can we? No, "those" people absolutely have to have affirmative action to be successful. It is the only way! "Those" people need a boost, an edge, and a guarantee of success. That's the positive discrimination they need.

 Without any of that "those" people will certainly fail, be excluded, and become a drain on society. Thing is they have had one form or another of affirmative action since 1865. The statistical fact is that 39.8% of blacks receive some form of government assistance. 38% of white families receive some form of government assistance. Thing is, blacks comprise about 14% of the population while whites are at about 58%. Why should the black population be so dependent upon government as compared to whites? It all harkens back to the Democrats. It was the Democrats that segregated schools, overturned field order #15, the order that would have provided forty acres of land to freed slaves that were head of households, and passed the majority of those Jim Crow laws we've all read about. It was the Democrats that made it illegal for slaves to be taught how to read and write. Those folks weren't to be educated in any way! If they were, the next you know they want your job! No far better to keep those folks subservient and dependent. That was their affirmative action right up until those folks could vote! At that point the Democrats miraculously became the biggest advocates for the blacks. Now affirmative action is providing handouts and victim cards in an effort to secure the vote. 

 I get it. Lots of folks will be upset by this decision. Imagine trying to make things equal for everyone. Why you can't have that. I could be replaced, or I could have my benefits removed! What happens when I have no victim cards left to play? What happens when I can no longer blame everything on someone else? What happens when justice is blind. Well, the harsh reality is this: discrimination is never a positive thing! You can attempt to spin that any way you like but it is never a good thing. It's like being only a little pregnant! All discrimination is bad. The biggest issue we face is confusing discrimination with discernment. They really are quite different things. Whenever I exercise good judgement and that judgement goes against your wishes I'm accused of discrimination. When I exercise that same judgement and it goes in your favor I'm praised as a wise man. That's how that works. And that is at the heart of the issue. 

 It sure would be nice if we could simply pass a law and everything changes. The law says, I have to love my neighbor as myself, so I do that. The law says if you can't afford a new car and I can buy you a new car, so I do. The says I shouldn't hold any prejudicial opinions against anyone, so I don't. The law says I have to agree with whatever you say, want, or do. No more conflicts! Sure would be nice but that ain't the way the world works. 

 

 

Rational

 Watched a video posted about a Lutheran church reciting a "sparkle" prayer. This prayer begins by professing belief in a non-binary God. I expect this church is catering to the LGBTQ+ community. I don't have an issue with that. It doesn't change my feelings on the subject of being gay.  I believe that goes against nature. But I'm not writing a discussion about that. In response to that video, I had to reply with God isn't a physical being. Therefore, God has no gender, no sex, no color, none of that. God is, as the Bible states, beyond our understanding. We assign all of that to our God(s) to make God familiar to us. The importance lies in the belief. Our God(s) define our moral beliefs. That is the sole purpose of God. To provide the guidance and reassurance that we are acting in an appropriate manner. The manner being defined by the society in which we live.

 There is no disputing the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles of moral conduct. That is what was expected of everyone. Exceptions were allowed, something that differentiated us from other nations were non-compliance could mean enslavement or death. Still, the ruling principles were based in Christianity, which of course was derived from the Hebrews. But that, like everything else in the world, has changed somewhat over time. It's what we typically call progress. It's a loosening of the rules. 

 A more convenient faith is required in this new age of progress. Strict adherence to the text isn't acceptable anymore, a redefining of the text is what is needed. It's the same whether you are talking about the Bible or the Constitution. The interpretation of the words has certainly changed. In the Old Testament, in the book of Leviticus, it clearly says, man shall not lie with man as he does with a woman. In the New Testament in 1 Corinthians Paul writes, Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." There are religious leaders today that say none of that means homosexuality is a sin. They agree that is what the words say but it isn't what they mean. The Bible is the word of God, but Paul wrote it! 

 That is a very convenient way of explaining that. The biggest explanation being, God will forgive all your sins. For that reason alone, just change the meaning of the text, were necessary, and you can still be in compliance. In other words, just change the rules. We do the same thing when we change the law. Yesterday it was illegal for me to smoke pot in Maryland, next week it won't be. The action hasn't changed just the acceptance of that action. It doesn't define right and wrong, it defines what is allowed.

 I write all this from my perspective, my belief and my understanding. I believe that God, whatever and however you wish to define that, is the essential element in nature. Something similar to what the Deists believed, but I don't believe God abandoned the universe after creating it. Whatever goes against nature is wrong. That's what I think anyway. Nature is something we can't control but something that can destroy us in a second! The proof of that is clear to see. And now we have reached a point of arrogance that we believe we can control nature! Climate control? No, climate control is all about trying to survive in a world that we have created, not the world God created. It is estimated that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It is estimated man has been on earth about 6 million years. And we think we are going to destroy the earth? No, the earth will destroy us is closer to the truth. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. 

 As far as any church reciting sparkle prayers that doesn't concern me at all. It will not change what I believe. I also have no great desire for everyone to believe what I believe. That being said understand that it will also not stop me from telling you what I believe. Like two children saying, did and did not, there isn't any quit in me. It doesn't mean I hate anyone; it means I believe they are wrong about whatever. Everyone wants the same thing. Everyone wants to be loved and accepted. The only thing different being in what that acceptance is. For me it is the promise of eternal life. My spirit will go on. That's what I believe, what gives me comfort. No, I don't believe I'll be walking around in heaven playing a harp. My spirit is my energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed by man. Nature can do that though! It's best to comply with nature, that's my thought. What's the natural course? That's what has to be asked. Yes, you can buck nature, go against the grain, and get away with that, at least for a while, but it will catch up with you. And the thing is, one day the race is over! There will come a day when you can no longer say, sorry, my bad. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. It's the natural course of events. And nature will determine your ultimate fate. Rationalize life all you like; it will not change the outcome of your choices. 

Foolishness

  We are raising a generation of wimps! Listening to the news and the state fire marshal telling parents to give their children glow sticks instead of sparklers. He goes on to explain a sparkler burns at 2000 degrees and can catch your clothes on fire or you could get a spark in your eye. Yeah, well that was the fun part of having the sparkler in the first place. Learned about that stuff really quick and didn't require a reminder and a disclaimer on the product every year. The lesson was burned into your mind. And then he started in on fireworks and how dangerous they are. You could blow yourself up or suffer hearing loss. Hell yeah, that's the best part, blowing things up. But we are being told to keep your children safe, don't allow them to have any real fun, leave that to the professionals. Glow sticks, really? They sell those at the carnival to wear around your neck, nothing too exciting about that. The excitement comes when the sparks start flying.

 We are teaching our children that they are nothing more than victims. Anytime something doesn't go their way it is because of something from the past. They don't stand a chance because all the bad stuff has already happened, and they have to pay the price for that. We are teaching children that there are more than two genders and that they get to choose. Then we provide counseling and support when they discover the truth. We pass legislation making others go along with the role playing. We give awards and accolades for those that are the best players proclaiming them heroes. If they don't get the praise, the reward or the attention they desire, we blame the past. What a bunch of wimps they are becoming, afraid of their own shadow. There could be germs, virus, global warming, social inequity, and the boogy man! We are teaching them that any time they feel uncomfortable about anything they should seek mental health counseling or some pharmaceutical. And everyone around them should empathize with them, comfort and support them, no matter what. Anything other than that is hate! And hate is a crime! 

 We are teaching our children that having a degree guarantees success. If you get that degree, doesn't make any difference what the degree is in, you are then owed a great income. Don't worry about paying that loan back, the peasants with jobs will do that for you, you have a degree. You don't have to take any job offered to you now, you can pick the one you want and tell the employer what's what. Want to work from home, only work four days a week, and get maternity leave because you are a dad, no problem, your degree earned you all of that and more! If no job appeals to you, the government should fund you until you do. You probably have stress and are being treated unfairly. You should probably get disability, or at least an emotional support animal. Oh, and an I-phone with full internet access at no cost to you because that is a necessary thing to have, you know, to find a job. Probably a new electric vehicle too, to save the planet while you're looking for a job. 

 I sure am thankful I grew up when I did. Yeah, I got burned, cut, scraped, bruised, black eyes, broken bones, teased, called names, and caught colds! I went outside in the rain, snow, hot and cold without a backpack full of snacks, water bottles and an ambulance standing by. I had adults order me around and there wasn't anything I could do about that. I had to use the bathroom appropriate to my biology! To do otherwise would get you in big trouble. I was told sticks and stones would break my bones, and that was true enough, but names would never hurt me. I learned that too. Names only hurt me when I allowed them to. I learned I had to value your opinion before that opinion held any sway over me. I played with sparklers, fire crackers, knives, guns, fast cars and motorcycles. I climbed the monkey bars, rode the merry go around and played on the see-saw. I worked to earn a dollar and learned the value of knowing how to actually do things rather than talk about them. Yeah, being real smart and having a college education was a great thing but if that degree in basket weaving didn't pan out it sure helped to know how to cut the grass. I learned there are a lot of educated damn fools in the world. Seems like we are trying to raise a whole generation of them these days! I sure hear enough foolish proposals and thoughts. I got the wrong assignment at birth. Yeah, that makes sense alright. 

The majority

 First thing I heard on the news this morning was about affirmative action. The question being whether race should be used during the application process for college admissions. I heard arguments on both sides. Also discussed was whether ACT/SAT testing should be required. The argument there being those tests are discriminatory. It was mentioned that nearly 83% of colleges and universities no longer require those tests. All this in response to what the Supreme Court opinion may be on affirmative action. 

 Now the first thought I had about all of that was a simple question. Is the majority prejudicial? That is to say, in a country where the majority rules, is that majority always prejudicial and discriminatory? It feels that way when you are in the minority, no doubt about that. I always felt that way when my older siblings got to do something and I was told, when you are older. The majority opinion being, I was too young. I was forced to comply with that decision, in fact penalized if I refused to do so. My only court of appeal was my grandmother! Problem there was she almost always agreed with the majority opinion. 

 So how do we determine the majority? If we can't simply go on the numbers, what other factors must we include. That's a part of the reason for the electoral college, an institution that many proclaiming the majority rules want to abolish because, well, we should just count the popular vote and the biggest number wins. Well, unless the bigger number isn't your candidate then it is just rigged, discriminatory and probably prejudicial as well. In that case the majority doesn't rule, the majority is obtained on the curve. Just like they started doing with grades in school to boost the lower scores and lower the upper scores, so everyone was on equal ground. When 86% of the class gets a high score, the other 14% should be compensated for that and given a few extra points. That's grading on the curve. When voting if 86% of the voters say yes and 14% say no, that should be a tie! If it isn't, it's discriminatory! That's the thought process there. If you can't pass the ACT/SAT test, we should eliminate the tests. According to the news, the majority of the colleges have done just that. Guess what, admissions have soared! Students after graduation being prepared for the workforce not so much, but they have degrees. Now, that is fair. 

 You can see this in every aspect of society today. Everyone agrees the majority should rule, that's a fundamental principle in our Republic. But the majority isn't the greatest number, not that majority, that's just prejudicial to all the minorities. For that reason, the 1.5%, 14%, and remaining 84.5% should be divided by three. That means that 1.4% should count for 33.3%, that 14% should also count for 33.3% and the 84.5% should also be counted as 33.3%, that way, everyone is equally in the majority. See how that works? The thirteenth amendment to the constitution, enacted in 1865 ended the 3/5 rule, effectively saying every person counts as one vote. Today there are cries for making everyone count as 1/3 or some other fraction. The majority must be determined on the curve.  "Grading with a curve means adjusting student scores after a test or assignment. Typically, the curve raises the average grade and individual student scores." In quotation because I got that explanation from a web source. It does explain what I'm saying perfectly. Adjusting the score after the results are known, like changing the votes after the votes are counted. You know, making it fair to everyone, the majority will be determined after the fact. 

Equity or equitable?

 Are we free to pursue our dreams, or aren't we? That's the question I have. Listening to those talking about the loss of the Titan in a tragic accident the answer would have to be, not without government approval first. Is that how that is supposed to work? There will be no innovation, no experimentation, no risk taking without prior government approval! I'm guessing the, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else argument, doesn't apply in this case. No one was forced aboard that submersible and all were well informed of the risk they were taking. Seems to me that was the freedom to choose. They paid for the ticket. Their choice. This experimental craft was made using carbon fiber and titanium. Engineers figured it would work and it did; fourteen times. A lesson learned. No laws were broken, no regulations ignored, it was just a man with a dream and enough money to try that. He wasn't building a weapon of mass destruction, or developing some virus like governments are prone to do. No, he was building a submersible to be used as a tourist attraction, of sorts. Not much different from space-x and their rocket flights. Not much different from Blue Origin. 

 Yes, there are risks involved with all of that. It was a risk to get in a covered wagon and head west, should the government have cleared the path first, made that as safe as possible? Should Evil Knievel have had government approval and oversight before any of his stunts? I just don't see the problem here. It was their choice to participate in a risky adventure. It certainly didn't have any adverse effects on me other than making me feel sad for the loss. As for the cost associated with search and rescue operations, I don't believe you should start charging for that? How much is a life worth? Are five lives worth more than one? When do you start and stop those operations? Currently that is the only part of this the government does control. Are we to examine your "ability to pay" before launching any attempt at rescue? Sorry your credit score is below 800, no looking for you. After all we can't get you to sign a loan agreement unless we find you and we might not, it's a bad risk. You should have purchased insurance for that! You know, just in case. 

 It's my feeling we already have far too much government control. I don't want to see innovation, experimentation or taking a risk being controlled by the government. If I'm willing to risk my life, without endangering anyone else in the process, I should certainly have that freedom. That should apply even if five people all agree to take that risk. Just as long as no one is being subjected to any risk without their knowledge, it should be good. As far as I'm concerned if I want to build my own house and it subsequently falls on my head that's my business! If I want to strap a pair of wings on my arms and jump off a cliff, my business. If I want to try to reach the Titanic in a discarded LP gas tank, my business. There have been attempts made to row across the oceans of the world, fly balloons around the world, swim across the English Channel and break the land speed record. Many died in their attempts and no cry for government control, no cry of, who is going to pay for this? But, hey this guy was a billionaire, his estate should pay because he can afford it. If you are poor, you get rescued for free. Now that's equitable! You can get a free Covid shot, along with a number of boosters, but if you get Covid that hospital bill is on you! Does your equity determine your equality? That's what I'm hearing anyway.  

a distraction

  So, Hunter gets to make a deal regarding misdemeanor tax charges. He willfully didn't pay over 100,000 dollars in taxes for two years running. No problem though, just an oversight because he was high on drugs and alcohol. And yes, he did have a handgun for eleven days illegally. You can't have a gun while you are a substance abuser or alcoholic. At least that is what was reported on the news. So, he made a deal with them to avoid prison and possible criminal conviction on the firearm charge. He just has to go to "treatment "and not abuse drugs and alcohol for two years. Remember he was discharged from the U.S.Navy for cocaine use. And I'm told all of this is the normal course of action no special treatment for Hunter Biden. 

 Following the news report a commercial came on telling me the IRS was implementing forced compliance! I needed to call this tax service right away to avoid the loss of my home, my car, any assets I may possess and avoid prison! And this would happen to anyone and everyone, act fast time is running out. But this company could cut you a deal with the IRS, a sort of payment plan, or perhaps forgiveness altogether. I did breathe a sigh of relief because I had just seen that news report about Hunter and knew I could just say, sorry I was drunk and avoid all of that. Certainly, if Hunter got that deal I could too and I didn't have a gun! 

 The charge is willful failure to pay. That means he had the means to pay just that he chose not to pay. That seems a bit different than not having the money to pay which sometimes happens to others. They may not have meant it; they were willing to pay just didn't have any money to pay. You still get prosecuted though. Your only recourse is to hire a tax firm, which you can't afford, to represent you with the IRS and hopefully make a deal. But don't worry, those tax firms will finance that as well. You can get the help you need on the easy payment plan. Pleading that you were simply drunk or using drugs won't cut it. Well, unless you are Hunter Biden that is, then that works just fine. He did pay up after all, the only forced compliance he faced was being charged with two misdemeanors, no jail time for those and a firearms charge which is a felony. But, he paid up and the charges are being dropped and the firearms charge will also be forgotten about, no problem. Hey, he was drunk or high, not his fault. 

 I wonder if I was stopped for speeding, you know willfully failing to obey the speed limit, if I could just plead that I was drunk. I'll go to treatment and not speed again for at least two years. And the gun in the car, well, it was only illegal for less than two weeks so that shouldn't count. It all seems to work for Hunter Biden that's his defense. He even wrote about it in his memoirs! That way you know he wasn't just making it up to avoid the charges, he really is a drug abuser and alcoholic. Maybe that is what makes the difference. After all he only refused to about 200,000 dollars in federal taxes a couple years, no big deal, it was an oversight, he was drunk. The poor guy was sitting in his kitchen filling out his tax forms, got drunk and just said, the hell with it, I'm not paying that. I'm certain he didn't have any tax attorneys, cpa's or anyone else preparing those forms. He was struggling with alcoholism and drug addiction! Heck, he even lost his laptop for a while, forget where it was, and it probably had that tax stuff on there. The repairman that had the laptop is the one responsible for that, he should have contacted Hunter. 

 So, what is the deal? The deal is there is an election coming up and we need to settle this stuff fast. Hunter is just a distraction from the real agenda. The real agenda is to eliminate Trump from any possibility of interfering in the election. That interference is his being on the ballot! So, we charge Hunter in an attempt to make the DOJ look fair and unbiased in going after these bad actors. Nothing will really happen to him; he just has to take one for the team this time around. I'm certain there are those that will make it worth his while. It also infuriates Trump who can't resist ranting and raving about all of that, that makes him look bad to some, and that is the point. Poking the bear so to speak. It can work to their advantage. Politics is a game played on a global scale. There is much more at stake than the presidency of the United States. It's the old you can't see the forest for the tree's analogy. Hunter is just a pawn in the game. We are even less than that, we aren't even on the board. 

it's up to you

  Measuring success. It starts when we are in elementary school. Our grades are that measure of success. The value of the measurement is what is in constant change. I don't remember what grades I got in elementary school. What I mean is I don't remember the unit of measurement. Seems to me that it may have been satisfactory and unsatisfactory. At least at some point in my educational journey that was the standard. Letters and numerical values came later on. In high school it was a numerical score that much I remember. I graduated from high school in 1971. It was in a time when a 100% was the best you could get. I see that no longer holds true today. The grades are now given based on a 4.0 scale. 4.0 is like getting 100% but you can do far better than that! I see graduates with gpa's exceeding 5. It's an indication that the student has done extra work, possibly at a higher level. Many take college classes in high school these days. I'm not sure how that works because to my way of thinking you have to build the foundation before adding additional floors. Success is measured by the successful completion of the course. The purpose being preparing you to become a success in life. 

 How do we measure that success? Generally speaking, we measure that success with financial gain. If we have money, we are a success. That is the perception, although most will argue the point. You don't have to have money to be successful! Yeah, I know. My Mom had a little figure of a hobo sitting in her curio cabinet. He held a small sign that said: money isn't everything, but it sure beats whatever is in second place. There is a great deal of truth in that simple statement. Success is happiness. That is what most will say. I wouldn't disagree with that statement but how do you measure happiness? That is certainly a fluid standard. What makes me happy may anger you a great deal. Being successful and being happy at the same time is certainly possible although it does seem like one interferes with the other at times as well. Celebrities will sometimes complain about that, losing their privacy in the process of being a success. 

 I would say success is meeting the standard. The standard is set by others. Our struggle to meet the standard is what drives us in life. We all want to be perceived as a success, no one wants to be a failure. It really doesn't matter what we personally think ourselves to be, it is what others think that define success or failure. That is also the reason we attempt to change the standard. By lowering the standards, we can achieve success. In my opinion that is what we have been engaged in for some time now. The standards that concern me the most are moral and ethical standards. Those standards have little to do with education or wealth. They certainly have a negative effect on obtaining happiness, however. It's an old adage, to sell your soul, but that is what is happening. You are trading happiness for success. A success defined by others. 

 Success can only be achieved through self-discipline. It is the manner in which you discipline yourself that will determine the outcome. All great athletes must practice, practice and practice some more. It's the same with anything you choose to do. If you want to be successful, you have to remain disciplined. What is the measure of success? What I'm asking is, what is a successful life? That is the success I'm thinking about. There are a multitude of things I would have liked to have been successful at but was not. We all have our failures and that is normal enough, no need to be upset by that. The defining of success is ever changing. But it only changes in our own mind. That's something you learn with age. It isn't something that can be taught to anyone and some never learn that lesson at all. In the town where I was born and raised, they had a saying. When someone passed away the biggest compliment they could receive was having it said about them. He or she was of the "finest" kind. What that meant was that person was someone that had met the standard. They were a moral and ethical person and had earned the respect of the community. A success. Success achieved over a lifetime. If, at the end, it can honestly be said, he/she was a good person that person was successful at life. Back to satisfactory/unsatisfactory. You really are one or the other, it's up to you. 

Accidental

  Now we know the fate of those on that mini-sub. It's a tragic loss and one that will be remembered. There will be much discussion concerning that, but the bottom line is, they knew what they signed up for. The cost to take the chance was 300,000 for each passenger. They went through extensive training and signed all the documents, disclaimers and releases. Everyone was well aware that it was a calculated risk. Sadly, all that is left to do is grieve. As to whether the quest will continue to make visits to Titantic a tourist attraction once again that remains to be seen. It's my thinking that it will indeed continue. Many have died in other attempts using various means to break records, be the first, or because it was there. Mount Everest has an estimated 200 bodies lost on its' slopes with more people climbing every day. All of this is risky business. 

 For the next few weeks or months all the experts will be weighing in on television shows and social media. I'm certain Facebook has a good number of submersible experts! The cause of the tragedy will be discussed, debris analyzed, speculation and conjecture propagated, and I expect some form of memorial service performed. Can a made for tv movie be far off? Five lives lost on an adventure they willingly embarked upon. Personally, I don't feel the need to find anyone to blame. All volunteered to go, indeed paid for the privilege. I understand it doesn't lessen the loss, does nothing for those grieving those lost lives, but it was their choice. I can say with certainty if that sub imploded at depth those inside never knew what happened to them. It is my hope that is the case, that it happened quickly, and no one suffered for any length of time. 

 I'm reminded of the time the space shuttle exploded. Challenger exploded shortly after launch killing all aboard. It was doubly tragic as it was still within sight when it happened. The cause of the tragedy was eventually determined, corrected, and flights continued. There were seven aboard that vessel. The cause was an o-ring, a simple part, just a ring of rubber or some composite material similar to rubber. The same part, an o-ring, would be vital to the operation of a submersible. O-rings provide the watertight seal! During my naval career I was assigned to repair submarine components and was trained in the use and care of o-rings and their vital function. Yes, o-rings are a very big deal! But I have read that the "window" or viewing port in that sub was in question, having never been certified as safe for the anticipated depth. There was no government certification required for that vessel. Submersibles are not subject to government regulation, especially when operated in international waters. Falling into the realm of innovation or invention they are experimental in nature. We may never know just what failed. 

 

OceanGate has undertaken 14 expeditions and over 200 dives in the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico since its founding1. The company has been attempting missions since at least 2017, and successfully reached the Titanic wreck for the first time in 2021, and then again in 2022. It has 18 expeditions planned starting this summer of 2023, according to its website. Missions take approximately 10 days, eight of which are at sea, and cost passengers $250,000 each2.

 This from Wikipedia. I hadn't heard anything about this company before this tragic incident. It was founded by a billionaire. Was the motive to make money or to advance science and provide thrills to those that could afford the price? We can all speculate about that; some will demand government intervention and control. My thinking is that all entered into this adventure willingly and well informed. I don't feel like anyone was misled about the dangers. We all take a risk driving our cars or taking a flight on an airplane. I risk my life just driving through the city of Baltimore. So, I don't think anyone is to blame. It's a tragic accident. 

It's your vote

 The cost of freedom is truth. That is the fundamental premise upon which a republic is formed. Integrity is the cornerstone. That is what the founding fathers portrayed in their public lives. A code of honor, if that is what you choose to call that, an expectation of civility, ethics and yes, Christian principles of fair play. The truth was to be told and upheld, no one is above the law as we may say that today. The constitution itself was in question and there was genuine fear that it would not receive the votes necessary for ratification. The fear was the constitution gave the government too much power. James Madison agreed to write the first ten amendments too further that end, that is, give more power to the people. That was to align the constitution with the initial idea of government by the people. The people should have more control. The framers of the constitution were well aware that it may need revision, additions or modifications in the future. That was the reason for adding an amendment process in the first place. That is article five of the constitution.

 Now all that being said it has to be noted that those framers were men like you and me. Their private lives were certainly different than their public lives. It remains that way to this day. What we say and what we do are often quite different things. It is in all of that that we have the mix we call politics. What are politics? The first thought that comes to mind is government. Politics is the control of power. Yes, you could say that and be correct, but it is much deeper than that. Politics involves individuals getting what they want to further their personal agenda. They will work in concert with others when it suits their ends but will break away when it does not. The most important aspect of any politician is the public perception of that individual. The most successful never have their "faults" exposed to the masses. Either through the press, or through private means secrets are kept from the general population. 

 Consider those founding fathers. In the not too distant past, like when I was in grade school, those folks were beyond reproach. They existed on another level above the common man, examples of integrity and honor. Those men would stand on the battlefield facing death for a cause they believed in. Indeed, they would face each other in a duel if their honor was called into question! Sometimes it was the truth that they were defending against. But the thing was to defend that honor publicly, to give that impression of integrity. That's what I mean when I say they were in all reality just men like you and me. But they were judged on their public performance. It was results that mattered. That has certainly changed in today's world of politics. Now it is a no holds barred free for all. Today there is no honor among thieves! 

 Yes, that used to exist, that honor among thieves.  "The phrase “honor among thieves” is a phrase suggesting trustworthiness within a group that is not considered trustworthy to outsiders. It means that even criminals have a code of conduct among themselves, such as not stealing from each other, or not betraying a fellow criminal to the police. The idea of this proverb dates back to ancient Rome, where Cicero used it in his speeches." I extracted that from Wikipedia as I have found others often express my thoughts far better than I do. And that is what I was thinking about. Those politicians can no longer trust one another. I believe it is the removal of consequences for such actions that has led to this. What I mean is, no being called out on the field of honor these days! No more being run out of town on the rails. Far more learned people than I have written volumes on this subject. It concerns what is often called the social contract. There is a contract between those elected and the electors. You expect your elector to vote the way you want him to. You expect your representative to represent your values, ethics and morals. Those are the reasons you vote for that individual. Today we are enamored with this concept of broadcasting our virtues! We feel like all we really need do is show public support for whatever, we have become the politicians!

 The best way I can express this is a passage from this article I read:  "In a good governance society, a moral leader is one who upholds the core principles and ethos and creeds and values of the overall society," says Feinman. "Most societies have some kind of social contract, whether that's written out or not, and if you have a leader who breaks those principles, then people lose trust, diminish their willingness to pay taxes, move away, or take other steps that undercut the fiscal health of the polity." 

I think the social contract has been broken here in the United States. The evidence is all around. The removal of statues that honored leaders of the past, the removal of religious signs and symbols from the public domain, our government ignoring its' citizens in favor of refugees, migrants, deadbeats and criminals! The failure of our educational system. All signs that the contract has been broken. It must be understood that in our form of government the "moral" leader are the people! It isn't one person, sitting behind a desk, signing executive orders. It is the 535 voting members of Congress. That is the moral leader in this country. You elected them! 

 If you want to read the article I quoted here is the link: History shows that societies collapse when leaders undermine social contracts (phys.org)

An artist and an astronomer

  My son had a tree cut down in his yard due to disease. An old white oak tree. Due to its size, it was cut about three foot up from the ground. The stump is immense and the root system almost impossible to remove without excavating the yard. So, it was decided to make use of that stump. I assumed the task and have been enjoying the project. I began by removing the bark. With some experimentation I discovered the easiest way to accomplish that. I did get some advice from online experts; they are in abundance on You Tube on any subject that comes to mind. Following that I needed to level off that stump at a height of about twenty-eight to thirty inches. That's the standard height for a table. But I don't have a chain saw or a two-man saw. I could have rented a chain saw but decided to purchase one instead. Harbor Freight just opened a new location close to me and I went there. To make a long story short I purchased an electric chain saw with a 14" bar with a grand opening deal for just thirty-eight dollars. Now that stump has a girth of over fifty inches, so it was a bit of a challenge. I did manage to get it done with that saw. I have to say it was well worth the thirty-eight dollars I paid for the saw. Kudo's to Harbor Freight. 

 My son wanted a checkerboard on that stump. I liked that idea and suggested we add a sundial as well. That is what is going to happen. The checkerboard is easy enough to lay out, sixty-four two-inch squares is well within my capabilities as an artist. Okay, I used a framing square for that, and the longer leg of that square just happened to be two inches wide, making the job even simpler. Two inches is the standard size of a square on a checkerboard! You can learn a lot on the internet. The sundial however is more of a challenge. I have discovered several resources for that. There is certainly a lot more to creating a sundial that one would first expect. Having read about it quite a bit I gained a new appreciation for those ancient people that first figured it all out. It took a lot of time and patience. How they discovered the latitude I have no idea as sundials existed before we had globes with latitude and longitude lines. And yes, latitude plays a very important role in constructing a sundial. 

 I'm glad I live in a time when I can simply google all this information. I need to know the exact latitude of Greensboro, Md. Piece of cake, just ask. It is, 38.595 degrees north latitude, 75.85 degrees west longitude. Then I needed to know the magnetic declination. Again, easy peesy, it is 11.46 degrees west. You need to know that in order for the "clock" to be accurate. Knowing all that information I entered it into a program that drew a template for my sundial face and one for the gnomon. The gnomon is the slanted piece that sticks up on the sundial to cast the shadow. That angle must be the same as the latitude where the sundial is being used. The magnetic declination must be known to be able to point that gnomon towards true north, otherwise your time will be off by the number of degrees of declination. I know, it gets complicated and a bit confusing. You still have to adjust the dial for daylight saving time to have the universe agree with what the government says. It's a difference of about fifteen minutes in the northern hemisphere. 

 The project is moving along nicely but the rains have come. I'll continue when it is dry enough. The plan is to stain the black squares on the checkerboard and leave the other squares that natural white oak color. I know the standard checkerboard should have red and black squares, but I don't want to paint that wood. Call it creative license. The sundial will be laid out with lines showing the hours from 6AM to 6PM. That is just the template I chose given the space I had to work with. The gnomon will be made out of oak as well. I plan to seal the whole stump with polyurethane, high gloss with UV resistant qualities. Regular two-part epoxy resins are quite expensive so I'm opting for the poly. The internet tells me I can expect that stump to last anywhere from two to five years before rotting away. I will post some pictures when the project is complete. I've learned a lot about sundials so far. I'm just glad there are programs to do the math for me and print out templates. Sure, makes the task a lot easier. If I had to figure all that out, I would certainly have a headache. I just get to enjoy the process. It's like paint by the numbers, only it's astronomy by the numbers. An artist and an astronomer! I like that. 

 

replacing the past

  So, my granddaughter is over for a visit the other day. It was a few days after my grandsons wedding, and she had been one of the bridesmaids. I guess we still call them that, I didn't ask how they identified themselves. New pictures were available. I have to say everyone looked fantastic. Now my granddaughter had a picture that she really liked and asked me why I hadn't put it up yet. I told her I'm running out of wall space. She then informs me if I took down some of the pictures of those "old" people I would have room. The "old" people she is talking about are my parents, grandparents, and other ancestors. A great number of them are, of course, people that she never knew. Strangers to her. I suggested taking down pictures of her when she was younger, but she didn't think that was a good idea. 

 I got to thinking about that after her visit. I am one that has lots of photographs spread throughout the house. I had a corner of the living room wall filled with pictures at one time. I took them down when painting and I haven't put them all back yet. Still, I do have an inordinate number of pictures of people, I wouldn't call them portraits, that seems too formal a term, on almost every wall, tabletop and shelve in my house. The kitchen is the only room lacking in that regard, although the refrigerator door has a number of them as well. I don't want to take any of them down or replace them with new. It is something I struggle with and debate all the time. When I get a new picture, I have to think about which one do I want to cover up? In a number of the frames there are four of five photographs one atop the other. They are there waiting to be revisited. I often forget that they are even there and rediscover them when putting a new picture in there. I have a picture that my sister discovered in that fashion. It is a picture of a bride, unidentified on the picture, that she found behind a picture of our dad. It's my belief that it is Grandmother Clara, but I have no way to confirm that as all those that would know are long gone. It's a picture of an "old" person. 

 I have always done my best to tell the grandkids, and anyone else that will listen, who all the old people are. I've written stories about them, extolled others to write the names on the back of the photographs, explain who that person or persons are. I even tried to explain to my granddaughter that those old people will one day be her! When we are around, we say those are pictures of us when we were young. We may complain to our parents and grandparents about them, be embarrassed to have others see them. But after we are gone, they will all become just pictures of some old people. They may be stored away somewhere or simply discarded. Oh, I'm certain a few will be saved tucked away in a genealogy program or scrapbook perhaps. It's my thinking that scrapbooks will become something of the past although I am encouraged when I see all the postings about those creating scrapbooks as a hobby these days. Scrapping they call lt. Makes me a bit sad when I think about that though. Scraps are just pieces that have been left, usually discarded and insignificant. I don't want my life to become a scrap. But I guess it will be one day, whatever is left. 

 I do enjoy keeping my memories about me. I'm a bit old fashioned in that way. I'm not concerned with having the latest thing, the latest designs in home fashion and decor. The pictures on my walls tell a story. I remember this or that, back when. I'm fortunate that I have some items that where in my home when I was growing up, things that have been with me my whole life. Old stuff and old people. I'm reminded that I'm old people too. I can't say when this penchant for old photographs and old artifacts began. I'm thinking it may have begun when I turned forty. That was a year that hit me pretty hard. The mid-life crisis thing, I guess. I had retired from the Navy by then and working for the town of Ridgeley. I wasn't in a position of authority anymore, a change for certain. I also remember going for a haircut and the barber, which was a woman, asking me if I wanted my eyebrows trimmed. I knew I was getting old at that very moment. I'm thinking that may be where it all began. 

 And now I'm thinking it may be time to drag out some old photographs from my younger years. Photographs from the 1900's. Yes, the 1900's. Memories from a century past. I don't have many pictures like that around at all. Like when I was younger, I didn't want those pictures about, they are embarrassing. I'm thinking I'm over that and they would be a source of conversation and of laughter these days. It's good when you can laugh about the past, just remember the good times and laugh about the bad. The vast majority of photographs we have are of the good times, seldom are the bad photographed. The Victorians explored that by taking pictures of their deceased relatives! I was told that my Great Uncle Fred did just that, taking a photograph of his sister after her passing. I don't know whatever happened to that picture but I'm just as glad I don't have that. But if I start doing that, I will have to take down some of those "old" people my granddaughter mentioned. And that is how we get replaced over time. I'm certain not one of those old people would agree to that, to being replaced, we all want to be remembered. I just can't bring myself to do that yet. I'm not ready to replace the past. 

How or why

 Some days I just stop and look around. This is one of those days. I don't have any particular thought on my mind. It's one of those days where I feel like I have said everything I have to say. At the same time, I know that isn't true, I will continue to write and express my opinions. I guess this is what some would call a mental health day. I'm amused by statements like that, yeah, some days are better than others. It doesn't mean I'm suffering from anything other than being alive, if that is suffering. Take heart though, I'm a survivor. Empowerment is a big thing these days. Feeling empowered. Okay, if you say so but that usually just means you got your way. I remember that from my childhood, always was great when I got my way. Thing is there were enough days I didn't, that I learned to live with that as well. Good training for becoming a married man. Yes dear. It was a lesson in freedom. Freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want; you just get the choice of what to do first. May or may not be what you want.

 Next month I will reach seventy. That seems like a big mile marker to me. It's a lot of years. But I'm grateful enough to have made it this far and the hope is to reach that milestone. I know better than to take that for granted though. I've lost too many that were close to me to believe otherwise. Since I've been on Facebook and reconnected with old friends and classmates and made new friends as well, I've become even more aware of that. The world outside my own isn't that different. And that is what Facebook is to me, another world and one I escape to on occasion. I think that is why some get addicted to social media. I know I've had to get up and walk away from that myself, especially in the winter months. I haven't decided what I'm going to do today. I've got a few projects in mind, so it all depends on what I feel like. I do enjoy that freedom. Well, unless someone else has plans that is. 

 Yesterday was Father's Day. I got a phone call from my son in New York and had dinner with my other son. It's always nice to be remembered and thought of. I have to say they never forget, and I feel the love every day. I say my kids are my gift and so I don't want anything else on Father's Day. My grandkids messaged, as the kids of today are prone to do, and extended wishes as well. My grandson just got married and that gives one some perspective. I was remembering when my sons got married. I was remembering all the years gone by and the celebrations. I was thinking about the cards and drawings I was given by them and by their kids. Then I thought the sincerest words I have ever read were written in crayon. I think that is something only grandparents will understand. In today's world those words may be in marker, but the sentiment will be the same. Perhaps those words will simply be a text message saved to your phone. 

 So, this morning I'm just looking around a bit. I've got a lot to be thankful for. I can also give myself a little credit for that. I guess I was listening to my father after all. He told me many of the things I learned for myself later on. I guess that is how that works. That's what being a father is all about. Then if you are fortunate, you become a grandfather and begin to understand. Yes, it is nice to be grand! I can't wait to be great! Guess that is why I have to stop and look around every now and again, pinch myself to be sure it's real. Just how did I get here? It's a change from, why did I go into the kitchen? How or why? Which answer is the more important? Which is the more important? That's something to think about. 

 

Celebrate and Commemorate

  It's Father's Day, and also on this day in 1812 Congress declared war on Great Britian and her allies. It wasn't until 1972 that Father's Day became an official holiday! Yes, it had been celebrated since 1910 but wasn't official until 1972! Mother's Day was made an official holiday in 1914. It's interesting to note that far more people will know it is Father's Day than it is the day the war of 1812 began. That war is often called the forgotten war. It lasted until February of 1815. Many will know the white house, which wasn't white at the time, was burned by the British and the Star-Spangled Banner was written by Key when the British were attacking Baltimore, Fort McHenry withstood the attack. Madison was president and his wife Dolley is credited with saving that famous painting of George Washington. Dolley did make and serve strawberry ice cream to her guests at the Executive Mansion. James Madison never had any children with Dolley but did adopt a son of Dolley from a previous marriage, so he was a father too. 

 Father's Day always falls on the third Sunday in June so it's just coincidence that it is on the 18th this year. It will be another eleven years before that happens again. Richard Nixon signed the legislation making Father's Day an official holiday. Nixon isn't remembered for that much but thanks Dick, I appreciate it. A man named John Wannamaker who was a pioneer in the department store business used his wealth and influence to aid a local woman to get Mother's Day recognized. That was in the city of brotherly love, Philadelphia. Today Wannamaker is known for having the world's largest, fully functional pipe organ in the world! It's the grand court of the department store. He was aware of the profit to be made. He was correct, turns out Mother's Day is very profitable, so is Father's Day. I suspect the sale of ties isn't what it used to be in past Father's Days, but #1 Dad tee shirts I'm certain sell very well indeed. Sentiment sells!

 I was born in 1953 and so Father's Day wasn't really a thing until I was nineteen years old. I don't recall we ever celebrated that at my house. I expect we made him a card or something but nothing more than that. As I recall Mother's Day was the same deal, a day to be remembered but not celebrated with any big parties or anything. Well, as I recall back in the sixties we didn't make a big deal out of a lot of things that they do today. Your birthday was a big deal, but lasted one day not the weekend, the week or the month! Christmas and Easter were big days along with the fourth of July and Memorial Day. We didn't have commemorative months! That didn't happen until 1976 with Gerald Ford declaring February Black history month. Since then, many more have been added! We sure do a lot of celebrating these days! It's my feeling that we have become focused on "recognizing" things as a means of reward rather than just enjoying the thing. Being a dad has been my honor and my privilege. My children are my gifts. I got far more than I deserve, so nothing more is necessary. That's how I view this holiday. 

 Father's Day and Mother's Day are a celebration of family. That's the way I think about that. Without Mom and Dad none of us would be here, yes, that is the simple reality. It takes two. Biology can create life today without any active participants in the act! But it still takes two to raise a child. The importance of having a father and mother cannot be denied, the data fully supports that. Without getting into any large discussion about all the possibilities, all the possible scenarios and all the exceptions to the rule, the data clearly shows that. It's been said that it takes a village to raise a child. That's true. The village will provide the father or mother if one is lacking or missing at home. Being a father is a responsibility. It is also the greatest reward. Did you know that June 11 was National Children's Day? It is celebrated on the second Sunday in June. I had never heard of that and so missed it this year. I'll surprise them next year! I'm betting they don't know about it either. 

Humorous

 What do you call a restroom for the gay community? An outhouse! I read that joke on my memories page this morning and still got a chuckle from it. I know, it's offensive and some would call it homophobic. I say, it's just funny. Humor is often offensive and that's what makes it funny. It is the stock and trade of many a nightclub act, standup comics thrive on that. No one gets to upset by any of that. They are just kidding. Post something like that on your page and see how quickly people will say, that's not funny. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. 

 In years past curse words were like that. You didn't use them in public but whispered them in private. The comediennes in those smoke-filled nightclubs often used them for adult entertainment. For those old enough to remember Redd Foxx was quite famous for that, telling "dirty" jokes. People will still laugh today at those jokes although the shock value is certainly a lot less. The great George Carlin had an entire monologue on words you weren't allowed to say. Hilarious stuff for us mature audiences. In today's world the majority of six graders would know every single word or phrase he used in that bit.

 But now even the comics are being questioned. You aren't supposed to say certain things, unless you are one of those things. That's how it works. The truth is it has always worked that way. Those jokes were only told to the correct audiences, that was understood. Making fun is taunting. You aren't supposed to taunt anyone. You might hurt their feelings. Nothing funny about that. I could tell jokes, make fun of old white men, that would be fine. Self-deprecating is acceptable. I can do that. The worst that will happen to me is I will get an offer for help. Others will empathize with me and offer advice, counseling, and perhaps empower me to love myself! Joke about others and that isn't going to be the response. 

 The thing is though, joking about things, talking about them, exposing the stereotypes, creates a familiarity. When things become familiar to people, they often become acceptable as well. I heard lots of jokes based on a stereotype to later discover that stereotype is completely wrong. Those jokes then served to dispel that thinking, it was dismissed as silly. Still funny, but silly. Those jokes become almost like an inside joke with the family. You know the kind I mean, understood by those in the family, in the clique or group, and something to laugh about, be teased about, and learn from. Funny every time. Consider the use of those curse words. They have certainly become familiar and shock few people these days. The older generation may scowl and make remarks about the usage, but the majority don't even notice anymore. You hear them in advertisements, if not directly, they are implied. There is one commercial, I don't remember what they are selling, but the response is to say, hell yes. The list of advertising campaigns using this word play grows every day. It works because everyone knows the words. That may not have been the case in the past. We use acronyms today. Those acronyms are often the words we wouldn't say out loud, so it's almost like a secret code. We use them when writing. There are so many now you have to consider context to understand what meaning is being conveyed. We even have alternate meanings for the same acronym. WTH. What the heck or what the hell?  Depends upon the person reading it. 

 What's funny and what is not? Is it an individual thing or a societal thing? Humor is an important function in any society or setting. You have to be able to laugh it off. Humor in general is funny because it goes against what is expected. The things we find funny are established by society to a certain degree. What the political analysts are calling, being influenced today. There's a fine line between influence and instruction. When we instruct others that something isn't funny, what are we saying? If you can't even poke fun at something what is that saying? That is what I call intolerance! It's like when my mother would say, don't even think about it. She meant; this is what it is going to be so accept that. Now they are saying by poking fun, I'm spreading hate. You need humor to survive. When nothing is funny, the world is full of conflict. Whether you find something funny or not is an individual thing. I tell lots of jokes that others don't find funny, probably why I'm not a comic, but I don't get upset by that. Hey, your jokes aren't that funny either. Jokes require a bit of thought or no thought at all. That's what makes them funny. If I can direct your thoughts, I can make you laugh. But then again, some folks just don't have a sense of humor. The joke I opened with, it's a riot. 

Constitution (imho)

 I was told yesterday that the constitution didn't mention women or the lgbtq+ community. Now I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination so I did a bit of research and reading on that topic. As with every topic involving opinion the data/proof covered the entire range. I did find one article that satisfied my understanding of the question and went with that in my response. While doing so I was aware that all of that hinges upon opinion and that interested me as well. It's the question of interpreting what the document actually says, apparently the purview of scholars, something I take issue with. I don't believe you have to have a college degree to understand what was written. In fact, it's my feeling that it may become a hindrance to that as you may possess too much information. Too much information can cause a person to overthink the situation, or the text. 

 It needs to be understood that it took five years and nine months to write and ratify the Constitution. Yes, it took that long. For that reason alone, I believe it is safe to say the wording of that document was very carefully selected. It is my belief they meant exactly what they wrote down. You only need to understand the terminology to understand the document. The meaning and usage of words certainly change over time and so must be taken in the context of time. When the writers of that document mention the "people" they mean all the people, both types, male and female. They were the only choices at that time. There was a great deal of debate concerning how the government would function, a government for the people, by the people. They meant, everyone. Was this government to be based on property(wealth) with those people controlling legislation of laws or was it to be the people. The people are what was chosen. Then they got into the counting of those people and the infamous 3/5 rule came into play. That rule pertained to slaves, but all slaves not just black slaves, and they all counted as only 3/5 of a person, including male and female. 

 So, yes women are indeed included in the constitution. As far as any mention of a person sexuality that wasn't pertinent to government. So no, it wasn't mentioned at all. Everyone was counted as a person regardless of any of that. As was explained in the article I read the bill of rights extended to everyone, male and female. Although women were denied some rights by legislation, ie: the right to vote, they were still protected by the rights in the bill of rights. How can you say they weren't included in the constitution when they did enjoy the protection of those rights? All the lgbtq+ people were included as well. No rights were denied anyone for their sexual orientation. The only time it was an issue is when actions were performed contrary to the law, not the constitution. 

 You have to remember they are separate things altogether. The supreme court has the final opinion! The congress has the final say! That is important to understand. The supreme court issues an opinion, but congress has the final say. The congress has the means to alter that opinion by means of a constitutional amendment. The court may also change its' opinion. That's the reason for all the bickering about appointment of judges, term limits, and all of that. Amendments to the constitution are rare for a reason, you just don't change opinions that easily. You could say the supreme court sets the moral compass of the country. That's why it is an opinion. In my opinion what you are doing is morally wrong but you may hold a different opinion on that. The very reason there was no establishment of religion in our constitution. Religion concerns morality and the constitution doesn't address that at all, only legality. We all agree that slavery as an institution is morally wrong. It took the United States 89 years to include that in our constitution with the passing of the 13th amendment. No where in the constitution did it ever say holding slaves was legal. Frederick Douglas said, "If the Constitution were intended to be by it's framers and adopters a slave-holding instrument then why would neither slavery, slave-holding nor slave be anywhere found in it?" It was a moral issue and abolished. Indeed, some wanted to abolish that practice when composing the constitution, but those holding slaves had strong objections to that for the obvious reason. A compromise was reached with that infamous 3/5 rule. As I said, you have to remember this took a total of five years and nine months to write and ratify. Lots of compromises were made. 

 Well, I'm no scholar of the constitution but I have read it several times and keep a copy of it on my desk. It's my feeling the words and phrasing were very carefully selected. When they said, arms, they meant weapons. Not just muskets but all firearms of any type whatsoever. Yes, legislation has been introduced and passed restricting certain "arms" from general sale to the public. Fully automatic weapons were banned for sale to the general population in 1934. The reason was the criminals were using them and the police department didn't have those. Seemed reasonable enough. Take the automatic weapons away from the criminals and only law enforcement would have them. That was the thinking on that anyway, hasn't exactly worked out that way though. Funny thing about criminals, they don't care about the law. But the supreme court hasn't changed its' opinion. The reason for that is easy to understand, it is because of what that amendment says, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So, the question comes down to regulations. How much can we regulate something before it becomes an infringement? 

 The supreme court issued an opinion that burning the American flag is a guaranteed right under the first amendment. Thirty years ago, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of imposing additional penalties for a hate crime. So, the court's opinion is now, if I burn a Gay pride flag or a BLM banner or say something antisemitic, that is a hate crime and subject to prosecution. If I burn the American flag that is a right protected by free speech. It's a moral opinion don't you think? It addresses what we hear an awful lot about today, being offended. Those other groups are offended when I burn their flags or banners and that is wrong. I'm not offended when you burn my flag. That's what the courts' opinion is now. 

 The constitution, in my opinion, is quite clear about what they meant to say. I think it is wrong to start reading between the lines. It may further your cause to change the opinion of the court but that doesn't mean your opinion is correct. Amendments to the constitution come about out of necessity. Remember the 18th amendment? What was the intent of that? It was a moral decision. Interestingly it didn't outlaw the consumption of alcohol only the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. Didn't stop the criminals only increased the crime. It was repealed later on, the moral question being resolved with, they are going to do it anyway. The constitution was never intended as a statement of national morality. The biggest mistake being made today is in viewing it in that fashion. That isn't what it is. What it is, is the framework for a republic. A republic of the people. The people make the moral choices, the government provides the punishment for violating those moral choices. 

Deciding

 I'm thinking it may be time to start sorting the past. Some folks call that decluttering or downsizing. I can see that. What I have in mind is sorting through the volumes of papers and notes that I have accumulated over the years. I have no idea why I have saved them other than I hate to throw them out. Realistically I can't see anyone else wanting to go through them for any reason. I suspect they would all just be thrown in the trash after I'm gone. Maybe even before I'm gone, if I can't take that stuff with me. I have file folders full of old papers, documents, notes. It will take some time to sort through all of that stuff. I'm thinking the time has come however, time to sort out the past. 

 I have read about MarieKondo. This is the Japanese art of decluttering described by a lady named Marie Kondo. Pretty clever don't you think, the name I mean, she simply named her method after herself. She says in her book that decluttering will bring focus and happiness into your life. It's an interesting approach but a bit in contrast to the way I was raised. I think it is more a generational thing. My parents didn't throw anything out and they learned that from their parents. That, combined with a more materialistic society fueled by the desire for immediate gratification, has led to the accumulation of stuff. We see it, we buy it. I'm guilty of that. Having decided that it may be time to declutter a bit I'm thinking about starting with the stuff I haven't bought, just the stuff I accumulated. The stuff I am willing to throw out. 

 That is what MarieKondo is all about. She discusses the phycology behind that process. It is an interesting read. Among other things she says we don't hang onto things, we hang onto emotions attached to those things. Throwing out the thing isn't throwing out the emotional attachment. It's like losing a loved one, they are still with you. That's the mindset she is talking about. And she does say you should start by doing one "grouping" at a time. For instance, my pile of old papers and notes. Do just that today. That is so you will see results right away. That's important to keep you motivated. After that, maybe go through your clothes, then your books, tools or general knick-knacks throughout your house. Just clean it up, declutter it and find peace. 

 But then again it is summer, almost, and I should be outdoors. Maybe all those papers will just have to wait, Make it a wintertime project. Besides I might need some of those papers, so I had better wait. Waste not, want not. That was some really good advice I received from my parents and grandparents. They saved balls of string and aluminum foil. Can't say I remember Mom ever having to buy a ball of string, but I don't remember her ever using that aluminum foil she saved either. Well, she had it, just in case. Always a good idea to have a backup plan. Yes, I had better wait a bit, not act to hastily on a method I just read about. Something once gone is gone for good. All my notes and papers may be valuable one day. Hey, I'm sure George Washington threw out a lot of his stuff thinking no one would ever be interested in it. William Shakespeare holds the distinction of the world's rarest autograph. With all the writing he did you would think there would be more. But, they aren't, he threw them out. Yeah, best to hold onto those things. 

self-identity

  I saw a post on my timeline from a stranger proclaiming themselves to be an artist. Perhaps he/she is, I just don't know. But this being pride month and all my thoughts turned to this self-identifying stuff we all keep hearing about. This person was self-identifying as an artist. The thing is though, can you do that? What I mean is I believe labels must be applied by others. It's the only way they are valid in my opinion. If I start identifying myself as handsome, intelligent and multi-talented there is a label for that, it's called narcissism. But many today believe if I self-identify myself in that fashion you have to validate that, agree with me and indeed, support me in that belief. They are calling that empathy. And we are all supposed to be empathetic, aren't we? That's what I've heard and been told on multiple occasions. The ability to share and understand the feelings of others. I feel you brother and you're a bit of a narcissist. 

 Now all self-identifying is nothing more than giving yourself permission. I admit it's very convenient, a lot easier than making any changes, just do as you please and call it my choice. After all, why bother with what anyone else has to say about anything, you decide. If I simply call myself a poet, I'm a poet. If I call myself an author, I'm an author. I don't need to have a thing published, receive any form of reward for that, no external validation whatsoever. I'm an author! But how many others would say, if asked, he is an author? The answer, in my case would be, no one. Not a single person so I'm asking, am I really an author? The answer has to be, no. Yes, yes, I know that doesn't matter but guess what, it does. I really don't have that choice. 

 Reality can be a real bummer. The hardest person to be honest with is yourself. The Bible even mentions that. The Bible says that God weighs the motives behind our actions. We justify our choices automatically, it's an ingrained trait. It's one of the weaknesses of mankind. Usually, we only alter those choices when there is some perceived advantage to ourselves in doing so. Barring that, we attempt to convince others to simply join in with our choice. Everyone is doing it. But it doesn't matter if 10,00 are doing it, it can still be wrong. Entire nations have been wrong! It's about judgement. We are told we should not judge, only God can judge. Ethics involves the judgement of behaviors, that is what sets the standard. Without any judgement there can be no ethics or morality. We should also be prepared to be judged by the standards we apply to others. Whether the other person is a good or bad person is not what is being judged, that indeed is the function of God, but behaviors should definitely be judged. 

 I'm certain that we all judge ourselves to be good people. That's self-identifying in its' most basic form. It's the elimination of standards altogether. To quote a biblical passage, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. What is that saying? Judge yourself and compare your actions to others. This is where the honestly comes in, can you judge yourself blameless? Well, we say, it all depends on how bad we are. There are different degrees of wrong. But the reality is that the differences that exist are the degree of punishment for the wrong. The wrong was still wrong. 

 The bottom line is you are what other people see. That is how you will be identified. It's a perception created by you. It may or may not be who you really are in the eyes of your god, if you believe in one. It's the motive that is being judged. And that's why we have decided that we all need to signal our virtue these days, to remove all doubt. I'll raise a flag, a symbol, or repeat a phrase to broadcast my virtuous intentions. It's an attempt to create a perception. It can also be a deceit. How honest can you be with yourself? How long can you live with deceit is the better question? Living with that, living a dishonest life will certainly lead to any number of problems with your mental health. That's pretty obvious today if you are paying attention. My suggestion is, start listening to what others are telling you they see and examine that closely. Is that who you really are? Don't worry about it being right or wrong just judge that. If what they are a seeing is a lie you have to judge your motive for creating that perception. It's the moral question of, do the ends justify the means. Can two wrongs make a right? Self-identity is far different than public identity. That's the reality. 

sometimes

  Sometimes the dream is far better than the reality. But I think that is something that has been lost on many in recent times. "A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams." (John Barrymore) "It is in our dreams that we accomplish our greatest achievements." (ABR) That is my thought anyway. I'm ABR. My disappointments far outnumber any regrets I have and for that I am thankful. Regrets stem from doing wrong. We don't regret doing the correct thing. Disappointment comes from expecting others to do the right thing. But when dreaming things always work out for the best, unless it is a nightmare. Nightmares comes from our subconscious, they serve as a warning or punishment, that's what I think. 

 What I was thinking about however, is in these modern times how often we enable a dream. Dreams do come true. The thing is that dreams require a lot of hard work, dedication and sweat. Not all of us are up to the challenge. Today however many feel the need to enable your dream and, in the process, rob you of the achievement. Remember when you were a kid and wanted that bicycle or some other toy. You dreamed about it. When you were very small you may have written to Santa Claus in the hope of getting that. When you got a bit older you were taught to work for it. There was no, go fund me, back in those days. Making your dream come true wasn't a group activity, that was up to you. And that is what is being lost on the kids today. It's not a feeling of entitlement, that's not it, it is a loss of pride in achievement. The same attitude that gives everyone a participation trophy. All that is required is to show up! And even then, there are many excuses and exceptions to that.

 I'm thinking about independence and independent action. That is what founded our nation and what has, up until recently, sustained us. But we have become dependent upon others to satisfy our dreams. If not through financial support by the lowering of standards. The goal is far easier to obtain when the bar is lowered, no doubt about that. All we need do is express the desire and others spring into action to provide whatever it is we wish for, what we are dreaming about. We have applied many names to that, social programs, grants. scholarships, and occasionally just straight up charity. We have even legislated charity in the process. The only hard work, sweat and tears required is to ask. If you ask and don't receive, you pursue a reason for that. Then after determining what injustice has been committed against you, against your dream, you sue for that. 

 But I was saying that sometimes the dream is better than the reality. I stand by that statement. If you never pursue that dream, simply repeat it in your mind, you will never be disappointed. The dream comes true in your own mind. Then you can enjoy that forever, no one can take it away, spoil that, or change it in any way. In that world all is perfect, just the way you dreamed it. And that is enough! That is what I feel is being lost on many today. 

 Not all dreams need to come true, some should be saved, a safe harbor when the real world gets rough. When the world seems overwhelming, sometimes I dream. Dreams are a rest, a respite from reality. We are told to chase our dreams. It's my feeling we should just relax and enjoy them. If you can dream it, you can do it. That's what we are told, and it holds a great deal of truth. It speaks to the power of belief. If you believe it, you can do it: sometimes. That's the caveat to reality, sometimes. Other people will often impede you, get in the way of your dreams. If you don't act upon your dream, it remains untouched, unencumbered by others and their reactions or responses. The dream remains as an inspiration. The dream is the reality in your own world. Just remember to wake up and face that other world, the one where things don't always go the way you want. Sometimes they do. "Do not allow your expectations to become your dreams." (ABR) Yeah, that's me again. 

what's reasonable

 When permissive become pervasive. That is what leads to the downfall of society. This can be seen throughout history and with all cultures. It's the reason democracy can be expected to last about 250 years. It is what spoils a child as well. Structure and adherence to the law is what is required to maintain any democracy. When we become permissive, even in the name of that democracy, we are weakening it. Over time, one small "exception" at a time the democracy is eroded, replaced by a legislative society. There always comes a point where that breaks down as well, and anarchy rules. The stuff of revolution. That revolution takes different forms, but always destroys the democracy. That happens with the imposition of will. Eventually a group will form that will revolt, defy the powers that be despite impossible odds to gain control. That group will then form their own government, their own method of control. Do not be deceived, government is about control. That is the primary function of any government, to govern, to control, to moderate the people in that grouping, whatever name you wish to call it. A club or a nation it makes no difference, the point is control.

 If you look at the history of our nation you can see this permissiveness spread. Always hailed by those that were "prevented" as becoming enlightened. Our society is advancing. Yes, it is advancing toward its' eventual downfall because a society without rules or a method of enforcement for those rules, is not sustainable. Like a child out of control trouble will develop, often with fatal results. Without accountability or responsibility very bad choices are made, indeed encouraged. When a nation is ruled by feelings rather than reason, it will collapse. The collapse will occur because of feelings rather than reason. Feelings fuel revolution. Emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides. Being permissive will certainly make others feel good in the short term but also leads to disappointment and failure. Then like children that have run away, they return seeking the comfort and security they were so anxious to escape. They return to find that it no longer exists because it was given away. 

 We have all heard the old analogy give then enough rope and they will hang themselves. There is much wisdom is that old saying, the truth of it is plain to see. We have all done that with our children, friends, co-workers or others that just plain annoy us. I've seen that play out on more than one occasion. It's like telling a lie, many more will follow to sustain the illusion of truth. Self-propagating. We have all heard the story of chicken little. I hear chicken little on the evening news daily. It's a form of control, to create an emotional response in the populace. It doesn't have to be reasonable, we can invent reason enough, plenty of experts willing to be heard. Repeat something often enough and it will become true. At least the belief in it will become true. All that matters is the emotional response, not the validity of the statement. What we can't see scares us more than what we do. 

 As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That is the most concise form of describing permissiveness that I think of. That statement removes all ethics from the process. Ethics are a moral code that define what you feel is right and wrong. What you are saying with that logic is, it is alright to harm myself. I can do whatever, allow whatever, as long as it doesn't hurt others. The fact that it harms you isn't relevant. Is that reasonable? Seems we have suicide hotlines, interventions and crisis teams to prevent that. You are not supposed to harm yourself. If we are to support that statement, as long as it doesn't hurt others, we shouldn't have any of those hotlines, interventions or crisis teams, just allow you to harm yourself. Hey, that is the moral choice right, it isn't harming others, so it's cool. 

 That logic is being applied however, being legislated as I write this piece. They call it euthanasia or assisted suicide. Some call it mercy. Well, what happened to the logic of, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else? That person will die! Sure, seems like that would be harmful. To my way of thinking if I want to kill myself it would be awful selfish, immoral, and indeed unethical of me to ask anyone else to participate. I'm asking them to hurt someone else, in fact, to kill them. And yes, a few states have given permission for that. The permission was given using another form of logic, they are going to die anyway. It's the logic of, there is nothing we can do about it. Thing is, that logic still doesn't make the action correct. Abortion is another instance of this permissiveness. It is being permitted by what logic? The woman has a choice about whether her child lives or dies. That's the ethical standard? Well, I guess you could use the logic of that child is going to die anyway, we all do you know. The logic of, everyone is doing it. It's right if everyone does it. If everyone is given permission, the action is correct. Now that's enlightenment isn't it. It is, until others with an emotional response puts an end to that action. 

 Happened to King George III in 1775 when Americans had enough of his rules. It wasn't reasonable for a group of colonists, with no arms and no army to start a war with Great Britian but emotions carried the day. We took his permission to rule over us away from him. Things were getting out of hand. Enough was enough. We will reach that point once again if history is to be believed. And yes, it will no matter how much you attempt to rewrite that history. The best we can hope for is a return to law and order. Set feelings aside and start doing what is reasonable. And reason, reason is determined by the majority because the majority are the only ones that can enforce that.