Treasure

  I have in my kitchen, sitting on the top of the fridge, an antique can. I laugh in thinking that it is listed as antique, collectible and nostalgic. This can once held Folgers coffee. The coffee has long since been used and that can repurposed. Well, the truth is it was waiting to be repurposed until I got it, then I repurposed it. How many years it had sat empty I couldn't say. I came into possession of that can after the passing of my Wifes' Uncle George. How long he had it I can't say, and whether he was even aware that it was there for that matter. You see Uncle George was legally blind and many things sat in cabinets and corners of his house that I'm certain he had forgotten about. My thinking this can is one of them.

 I drink Folgers coffee. It's my brand, for whatever reason. My grandmother always has Maxwell House because it was good to the last drop. I think the best part about waking up is Folgers in your cup. The thing we have in common is I still use a percolator. That can of Folgers I got from Uncle George has it proudly displayed on the can, it's for electric percolators! 

 That can could be from as early as 1968 according to what I was able to find on the internet. I won't claim to have done any research on that, research implies a more thorough investigation. In the right light, at just the right angle I can see the price that was marked on that can. It was placed there by a marking gun, in blue ink. It was priced at $2.69 for a one pound can. The current price for Folgers is about $9.00 a pound. I smiled when I saw that because I remember using those pricing guns when I worked at the grocery store. It hung in a holster from my apron strings like a six shooter! A small detail that most would not know these days. That just adds to the nostalgia of that can. At least nostalgia for me. 

 Folgers makes the claim that it is mountain grown. That's a good thing as I read where the altitude at which coffee is grown has a big effect on quality and taste. It's also good that coffee grows best at higher altitudes on land not really suited to traditional farming. Turns out the majority of your premium brands are mountain grown, although noy necessarily on an actual mountain. Juan Valdez was the spokesperson, although I don't recall Juan ever saying a thing, for Columbian grown coffee beans. It wasn't for any particular brand of coffee just those beans grown in Colombia. Today when we hear about Colombian grown we don't think of coffee. Well, times change.

 Did you know that instant coffee was first produced in 1890? I was surprised by that, but it wasn't well received until WW2. It was after WW2 that electric percolators became popular in America. Percolators had been in use on stovetops for generations prior to that. The cowboys just put the beans in a pot and boiled the water. They usually ground the beans just before placing them in the pot, everyone had a coffee grinder. In 1972 Mr. Coffee burst on the scene and changed everything. Automatic drip coffee makers began replacing those percolators. The reason was simple enough, they were faster, easier to use and easy to clean. There only real competition came from an instant coffee, Tasters Choice! That coffee was advertised as freeze dried, so it would be as fresh as the day it was brewed. 

 Sometimes it is just the littlest thing that brings a smile to your face. I often crack a smile when I see that coffee can sitting on the fridge. I may think of Uncle George, the little stamp on the bottom, the percolator and Grandma's house. I smile because that can is made out of metal. It has a soldered seam down the side that I'm sure some would say was leaking hazardous lead into the product. It does have a plastic lid to reseal the can after opening, a modern invention I'm sure for 1968. I couldn't find any information on that. 

 At other times I smile when I think, after I'm gone the kids or their kids will say, why did Grandpa have an old coffee can? It will mean nothing to them. Of course, it is possible that the opposite will be true. Could be one day they will want that can, set on their fridge and tell stories about it. You just never know about these things. I think they are amused that I use a percolator, drink my coffee black, no sugar, no cream, no flavors, no foam or anything! They laugh when I tell them a dollar for a cup of coffee is a bit steep. Folgers electric perk, mountain grown coffee was $2.69 cents for a pound. Today it is $9.00, and I suspect it isn't even grown on a mountain in Colombia. Juan Valdez has most likely retired, and his kids migrated to America. Wouldn't be surprised. 

 But that can has been repurposed. Its purpose now is in storing memories. I do have some 35MM slides that belonged to Uncle George in that can. The grandkids may be surprised when they find those. I guess they know what they are. The memories I have of Uncle George are with that can as well, although I don't recall seeing it in his home, it's enough to know that is where it came from. The little stamp on the bottom, memories of when I was the one stamping those products. Yeah, sometimes it is the littlest thing, something you think inconsequential that ends up being a treasure. 

                                                                        

    I have a can like this one only in better condition. For some mysterious reason my phone isn't transferring pictures to the computer si I can't share the actual can I have. Grr, technology.  

                                                                                

                                                                           

                                    There it is. 

irritated

 I saw on Facebook where some people are upset about seeing Taylor Swift during the football game. I've seen others complaining about Taylor Swift in general. The headlines proclaiming people are irritated. Well, I'm irritated too, but not with Taylor Swift. She's a celebrity and the cameras are going to focus on her, stories written, pictures posted. There are those that love to see that stuff about her. I'm not irritated by that. It isn't surprising in any way. 

 So, what irritates me? I'm irritated with almost every commercial these days showing mixed-race couples, gay couples, and all that. Guys holding hands and kissing each other, images of their "marriage." Yeah, it irritates me. I realize that stuff exists, I get it, you're attempting to make it mainstream, the normal thing, the expected thing but guess what, it isn't! All this trans stuff too! Irritating. Keep your personal business to yourself I don't want to hear about it. Irritates me.

 You know what else irritates me? All those commercials taking about "seniors." Let me fill you in on something, I'm over fifty, most of my friends are over fifty, and none of us are feeble minded, incontinent, suffering from low T or depression! We don't need to wear a life alert around our neck, we don't need extra-large letters on our phones equipped with an emergency button! We are not concerned about living our "best life" in an assisted living facility or senior center. I don't need a place for Mom. And I don't wear cardigan sweaters, Velcro closure shoes, or have hearing issues. And yes, I can walk to the mailbox! And don't get me started on stairlifts, jazzy scooters and all that crap! Oxygen generators and getting all those vaccines and boosters because I could die any second. Yeah, irritating. I may be over fifty but I'm not a helpless, doting old codger! 

 You know what irritates me? When our politicians start insisting anyone under the age of 25 shouldn't be subjected to the criminal justice system because their brains aren't fully developed! The same politicians passing legislation saying I have to seventy years old to receive full social security benefits. The same government studies saying my life expectancy is 78 years. Yeah, that irritates me. According to the advertisers once I reach fifty, I'm just about over. I can have dementia, high blood sugar, heart attacks, strokes, and any number of maladies! None of which should prevent me from going to work until I'm seventy! If I'm the average guy, I'll get to collect those benefits for seven years! Seems like a hell of a deal. 

 Irritates the hell out me when you have thousands streaming across the border that will begin receiving benefits two weeks after they get here. They don't need any identification, any medical records, no social security numbers, nothing at all except their hand held out. Yes, it irritates me. Then I'm being told I should provide all these services to help the poor migrants/refugees. But let me be late on the electric bill and the power is shut off! I've thought about moving to another state, but the government isn't providing me with airplane rides, busing, or housing when I get there. Yes, it irritates me. I should push one for English. Irritating. I should pay to teach people English as a second language. No, you should be learning English as your first language if you are living here. That's irritating. Don't understand what I' saying, figure it out for yourself Amigo. Yeah, I'm irritated.

 I'm irritated when I hear the requirements to join the service are being lowered because they can't get qualified people to join. So just who is going to be in the military? Thousands of young able-bodied men are streaming across the border with no skills, no education and no jobs. You figure it out. Where is their allegiance going to lie? They aren't willing to stay and fight for their own homeland, what are going to do for ours? Irritated. Then I'm going to be told I only have these concerns because of systemic racism. That irritates me. When the majority rules the majority gets their way. It doesn't have anything to do with racism, it has to do with votes. When the votes don't go your way, you can complain all you want, but the majority has spoken. I'm irritated when people holler about equality but expect special treatment. Everyone wants to be to be treated equally until they are! 

 I'm especially irritated when American troops are attacked and killed. American citizens are attacked, killed and taken hostage and the response is, we don't want to start a fight! Well, no one wants a fight, but you start it, I'll finish it! Operation Desert Sabre took four days! Desert Shield/Desert Storm lasted six weeks. That's how you answer that! I'm irritated that we haven't done much of anything but slap at their wrist and ask them to please stop that. Turn a few of those Houthi bases in Yemen into parking lots and get their attention! Yeah, I'm irritated when our commander in chief responds with, stop that and we are getting mad at you. Sounds like mommy saying, now don't do that Johnny, it isn't nice. When I was growing up you just got smacked down! And that's what irritates me, why haven't we just smacked those Hothi's into next week! It's not going to be a war when you have nothing left to fight with! I'm taking you out. It's an itch I'm going to scratch. It's irritating. 

in the details

  I'm not a big movie buff, although I enjoy a good film every now and again. I'm always amazed at those folks that can remember what actor played what part and who the director was or the producer. I think of those people in the same way I think of car collectors that can tell what color wire went to the radio, for each model car! Those folks are really paying attention to the details. In my view they are all a bit obsessive. Others call them experts and admire them for that. I'd say I admire their knowledge, but they are a bit obsessive. 

 I was thinking about that after reading a small article about the movie Top Gun. The first one that was made. This person was pointing out all the errors in the military insignia. Being a retired Navy man myself I had noticed a few things that were wrong but thought nothing more about that. The person writing the critique didn't mention if they had military experience or not. Whatever the case, it just struck me how closely to details that person was paying attention too. I've never watched any film that closely. I've read plenty of meme's on Facebook where someone is pointing out the littlest details in movies or photographs. I'm always amazed that anyone would even notice. Well, I have to say I am more amused than amazed most of the time. 

 Movies are just stories to me. Stories to entertain. I'm not talking about documentaries based in historical facts, not that sort of thing. No, I'm just talking about fiction movies. I know that in the old west they used six-shooters, but they rarely run out of bullets. I ignore that detail and don't give it any thought. In all the westerns I've watched I don't recall anyone using the restroom but surely, they did on a three-month trail drive. As I said, it's just a story. I guess I'm not really paying that close attention to this stuff. I wonder just how many times someone has to watch those films to collect all those details. I guess it is like finding Waldo to some, a challenge to discover all the inaccuracies. 

 I think what amuses me even more is when these film buffs get together and begin to argue about the film. It's all make believe people. That's my first thought. Could Superman defeat Batman? No one can defeat Superman unless they have Kryptonite! LOL and Batman is really just your average guy with a lot of money that fights super criminals in his spare time. I've read arguments about Star Wars, Barbie, The Quiet Man and everything in-between. People quoting lines from the movie to prove their points. It all just seems so silly to me. 

 Just sit back and enjoy the show. That's what those films are made for. Doesn't have to be accurate, make any sense at all or be anywhere near close to the truth. Fiction generally remains in the realm of possibility. It isn't intended to be the truth but what could be the truth, maybe, might happen. A sub-genre of fiction is fantasy, Fantasy involves those ideas or concepts that are beyond the realm of possibility, like a man flying through the sky, faster than time and is invulnerable except for one mineral in the universe that weakens him.

 How close are you paying attention? Apparently, I have an issue with that. Even when I was in school the teacher was saying to me, pay attention. I usually paid just enough attention to pass the course and not much more. I've always been interested in a lot of things but never one thing enough to become an expert on that. I guess I'm just a general knowledge sort of person. Not a: I'm on Jeopardy, general knowledge person, not that good, but generally I have an answer. I've even been called a know it all, definitely a misnomer as I can assure you, I don't know it all. Fact is that some things I'd rather not know! I've discovered you are better off that way sometimes. 

 I have been paying attention though. I'm an expert in one field. I'm expert in me. That doesn't mean I'm going to share that expertise with everyone. As an example, you won't hear me telling how I messed something up really bad and bragging about that. No, I was raised to believe that mistakes were meant to learn from, not teach from. I like it best when others don't know about my failures. My hope is you are not paying attention. Well, not paying attention when I am wrong, but paying attention when I'm right. The goal is to have you believe I'm always right. But then we are back to fiction, aren't we? Some would even call it a fantasy. It's all in the details I suppose. 

entertained

  It amazes me how much people will pay to be entertained. The Baltimore Ravens play the Kansas City Chiefs today in a championship game. The first one in Baltimore for a very long time and a big deal, I get that. It was reported that one man paid 76,000 dollars for two tickets! I didn't listen closely to the story but apparently, he had won a good deal of money in a lottery or something and decided to splurge. That's a lot of money for entertainment! Perhaps others view it differently but to me that is all any sport is, entertainment. I wouldn't call myself an avid fan of any sport but do enjoy watching the competition. It's been said those that can't play coach, but I have never had a desire to coach either. I just like to watch.

 It isn't only sports that people pay so much to see or enjoy. Concert tickets are ridiculously priced in my opinion. I know, it costs so much to get the band there, all those people have to be paid, and the talent, well it's reasonable for one person to receive a few hundred thousand to sing a few hours. The bottom line is, is it worth whatever others are willing to pay. I don't begrudge others for doing so, I'm just amazed by the amount they are willing to pay. I wouldn't pay five hundred dollars to have Willie Nelson sitting in my living room, as much as I enjoy his music. And that's just the simple truth. 

 Entertainment and vice. Both are equal in generating revenue. I suppose that it is just a part of human nature. I've noticed that even the churches are shifting more toward the entertainment side rather than the serious business of teaching moral values and virtues. 

 Yes, all that is mentioned, briefly, in between the entertainment portions. Churches now have stages and sound systems befitting grand concert halls. Those big old pipe organs are being replaced with a four-piece band. But it keeps the people entertained and engaged. Isn't that the purpose? I don't think it is a coincidence that the divorce rate is rising as the incidence of those getting married in a church is declining. According to one survey in 2022 only 22% of all marriages were performed in a church! Marriage has become big business. In an effort to regain "customers" some churches now perform gay marriages. It's a definite shift in my opinion.

 I'm not trying to say I'm any different than the majority of us. I will spend money to be entertained. Money spent on frivolous pursuits like "crafting" and what I like to call making do. That's what I say when I repair something myself to save money. Sure, I had to spend more money buying the correct tools, the materials, and maybe do it a couple times to get it right, but I saved paying someone else! That's the important part, not paying someone else. Maybe that's why I am just as pleased listening to my favorite music on the radio as going to the concert. I'm not paying anyone else, at least not directly. Like I said I'm just amazed how much some are willing to pay and a good number of those people really don't have that much money to spare. It's like those receiving "assistance" buying cigarettes and beer, getting tattoos, buying expensive jewelry and the latest I-phones. Same thing with concerts and sports. 

 Well, it is your money, and you are entitled to do as you want with it. I may not agree with your purchases. What I don't get is when the people spending their money on entertainment, in a rather irresponsible fashion to be honest about it, insist the wealthy people should be giving them more money. I hear that all the time. Those fat cats should have to share! And don't try to tell me you are skimping and saving every dime, struggling to get by, as you're drinking your 40's, or whatever the saying is these days, talking on your I-phone 28, wearing your bling while going to the latest concert at a few hundred dollars a ticket, or paying top dollar for tickets to a ballgame, I'm not believing that.

  I was just amazed when I heard about that guy spending 76,000 dollars for two tickets to a ball game. As I said I didn't listen closely to the story but I'm thinking he isn't a person used to having a lot of disposable income, as that is what the professionals call it when you spend money on entertainment. It's disposable because you can afford to throw it away. Is wealth measured by the amount of disposable income a person has? The professionals say wealth is measured by the amount of assets minus liabilities. That isn't what we perceive however, we just see that they have more disposable income than we do. For that reason, we feel they should pay more for our liabilities. 

 I'll be honest about it though. If I had a great deal of disposable income, I wouldn't be concerned with paying for your liabilities. I would use it to entertain myself. What form that entertainment may take I can't say for certain. It's what most of us think about when buying a lottery ticket or whatever. I really don't believe there are many that are thinking, if I win a million dollars, I'm giving it away. It may be what we say out loud, but not to ourselves. Would I become completely altruistic? No. That's the straight up truth of the matter. But I should be, even if you have to pay for it. 

normal?

  The American Psychiatrist Association has determined that gender affirming care is a medical necessity. So that means it is a medical condition. A condition that requires treatment in some fashion. The reality is it is a mental condition. That's why the psychiatrist. If I get really angry, lose control of my emotions, and harm someone I can plead temporary insanity, not a temporary medical condition.  

 Why have the professionals decided the treatment for a medical condition is to affirm that condition? That is to say, the treatment is to simply go along with the delusional thinking. And I'm no expert but I know this much, if you are a male thinking you are a female trapped in a male body, that's delusional! You are a male! That's what you are. What your sexual preferences may be, has nothing to do with that simple fact of biology. I don't care how much you enjoy wearing makeup, high heels or whatever, you are still a male. The medical treatment for that should be to get you to understand that. It shouldn't be to reenforce that delusion! 

 There is a sharp rise in children reporting themselves as transgender. Wonder why that could be? It wouldn't have anything to do with attracting attention to themselves, would it? No, I'm certain that isn't the case. Strange I remember wearing certain styles of clothing, listening to certain types of music, driving certain cars and all of that to attract attention. We called it being cool. Now the cool thing is to be as different as possible. You don't need a degree to figure that stuff out. Kids just naturally gravitate toward that kind of stuff, to be cool. I remember when a lot of kids wanted to be hippies. Far out man, drugs, sex and rock and roll. Free love, communes, and everyone doing their own thing, as long as it was the cool thing. Don't be square.

 Look, the bottom line isn't hard to understand. It you have a condition that requires medical intervention that means that condition is harmful to you. With this notion of transgenderism, it is actually a mental condition, and the same thing applies, it is harmful to you and requires intervention. Enabling the delusion isn't treating anything. The only thing happening here is normalizing abnormal behaviors. Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right. 

 You know it is possible to recognize and identify abnormal behavior without condemnation. It is what it is and that's my point. Simply call it what it is! If a guy is sexually attracted to another guy, that's queer. That's what it is. And yes, that has been happening forever but that doesn't change a thing, it is still queer, odd, abnormal, deviant and an aberration. It isn't normal or expected behavior. Occurs less than 3% of the time in the human population. If I'm a betting man, I'm betting you are heterosexual. 

 I'm not hating anyone. What I am saying is as long as we keep "affirming" this and the treatment is to enable the behaviors, it will continue to grow. Yes, it can be uncomfortable this conforming to societal expectations. The thing is, it is necessary to a functioning society. We have laws for the same reason, to establish what are acceptable behaviors. Without laws there is chaos. We don't allow people to just walk around naked. If you feel uncomfortable wearing clothes that doesn't mean the society should change to suit you. If you are a male at birth, you will be a male when you die, regardless of any medical or mental intervention. And that is just a simple fact.

 There is a difference between public and private. What you are doing in the closet is none of my business, unless I'm in that closet! Keep it there. You are doing whatever out of sight for a simple reason, you know that others are not going to like that. It's been said that integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking. I agree with that. If you feel like what you're doing should be done when no one is looking, what is that saying? It should be telling you that whatever it is you are doing is somehow wrong. At the very least it should be a clue that society in general will not find that behavior acceptable. The solution isn't to get society to accept that behavior! Seek help to change the behavior or keep it out of sight, that's pretty much your choices.     

which law?

  Baltimore like most major cities in America today has a serious crime problem. Every politician running for office in the last ten years has made promises about fixing that. Another election cycle is fast approaching and I'm hearing all that again. The current administration and the one preceding this developed a crime plan. Apparently, the plan is to simply allow what they call "low level" crime. By not arresting those engaged in such criminal activities there has been a reduction in crime. The most startling thing to me, but apparently lost on others, is this idea that if you get shot but are only wounded, that's progress. I hear that a lot when those politicians are talking about gun violence and the reduction of homicides in the city. Yes, fewer are dying from gunshots, doesn't mean fewer are getting shot though.

 It is this notion of not enforcing low level crimes that is fueling the rise in crime. I listen as they explain the are short staffed, they don't have enough officers, enough jails, enough judges to prosecute all that. They just don't have the time for that, enforcing all the laws, so they will just select the ones they determine to the serious ones. And therein lies the change. When I was younger, back in the dark ages, breaking the law, any law, was a serious thing. The punishment was certainly based upon the severity of the crime but whatever I had done was serious! It's true that obtaining results from punishment is dependent upon the individual.

  With some folks all that is required is a stern reprimand while others require something a bit more forceful. The thing is all infractions must be called out! What the politicians like to call accountability. Oh, that's a watchword today; accountability, but what it means now is finding someone else to blame. The one committing the offense isn't held accountable for that, there is most likely some social wrong responsible. Perhaps the person is poor, that's a good enough reason to steal, not their fault they are poor. It's the fault of the government for not providing relief to those people! If it isn't that it is more than likely because of some phobia! The others have as phobia, not the one committing the crime. They are victims of a phobia.

 Look it all goes back to an old adage. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That's just a fact. When you allow minor infractions to go unnoticed, unrecognized and unpunished the result will be more serious infractions occurring. We say, letting them get away with it. They are letting criminals run rampant in the streets and doing nothing about it. It's out of control. The only way to regain control is to use ever stronger measures. That becomes difficult when you have allowed all that in the past. No different from a child when they say, but you said it was okay yesterday. 

 You must enforce the law, all the laws. You have to do that consistently and without exception. Nothing serves as a deterrent when it isn't applied. There are so many avenues to escape punishment no one is afraid of being punished. In fact, in some instances that situation provides opportunities they wouldn't have otherwise. We are so busy rehabilitating, empowering, and being compassionate that we aren't addressing the root cause of the problem. What is the root cause? The lack of respect for the law. It's that simple. When you raise an entire generation of children to believe that society is responsible for their actions, that is what will happen. 

 It all begins with that. We have to teach our children that laws exist for their benefit, not to punish them. I often heard, it's for your own good, as I received some form of punishment. I seldom agreed with that reasoning. And the ever present, you know better. I didn't really have a response to that one because I did know better.  Do the ends justify the means? That is to say should I obey the law because of fear or because of a sense of civic duty? Who's to blame? The drug dealer or the one buying the drugs? If I can't buy the drugs, I can't use them. Equally true is no one is forcing me to buy those drugs. Are the drugs killing people, or are the people using drugs killing themselves? Are some laws okay to break? If so, why do we have them? If we didn't have any laws, there would be no crime. Isn't that the goal? But we need laws, the ones I agree with. That's the new rule being taught. The law should be tailored for each individual. 

race in the system

  I often see articles about who did or did not receive an award or recognition of some type. Just as often the reasoning behind these folks not receiving that is the perception that it is just systemic racism. That's especially true in the movie industry. But I have to ask, are awards based on talent, or on race? Should race be a factor in determining those awards? That's the question I have whenever I hear about that. 

 When the majority controls the system isn't the majority always going to be considered systemic? Sure, seems that way to me. In 2020 white (non-Hispanic) comprised 57.8% of the population in the United States. Latinos came in second at 18.7% followed by blacks at12.1% and everyone else 11.4%. Whites are currently in control of the system, generally speaking. And it is true that birds of a feather tend to flock together. When it comes to "voting" "picking" or "honoring" others that is who they will tend to select. Is that systemic racism or simply human nature? That certainly depends upon where you fit into the picture.

 Way back in 1964 the Civil Rights Act was signed into law by then President Johnson. The intent was to eliminate discrimination. I do not believe the intent was to ensure people received awards because of their race. It was well known, it wasn't a secret, that race was a factor in hiring people, in providing fair housing opportunities and in equal treatment under the law. That act was to correct all that making it illegal to be racist. The intent was to fulfill that proclamation made by Thomas Jefferson that all men are created equal. What was meant was not individual people, but rather equal opportunity for all men. Only later on did people begin to believe that it applied to each individual. Jefferson was talking about the "colonists" having the same right to self governance as any other nation in the world. Remember that little thing we call the American revolution? That's what that was all about and what those diplomats/politicians were writing about. Most famously with the federalist papers.

 I am puzzled a bit by those that profess Democracy, the rule of law, the will of the majority as being the cornerstone of the nation. Then when the majority rules they claim discrimination, racism and partisan politics as the cause. That's what the majority voted on. To me it's like complaining when you lose a game because the other player or team followed the rules. That rule shouldn't have been applied to them! There are those complaining that the civil rights act in 1964 was a discriminatory piece of legislation. In fact, the southern democrats held the longest filibuster in the history of the Senate in opposition to that. Prior to that bill they had signed the "Southern Manifesto" to resist that by all legal means. Their feeling being it was discriminatory to force them to hire blacks, give them equal opportunities, provide equal public services to them, and in general, treat them as though they were in the majority. Color was an identifier of their status as in the minority. Read some about the "tyranny of the majority" to gain an understanding of all that. 

 The bottom line in all of this to me is a simple one, birds of a feather truly do flock together. It's human nature, a defensive thing intrinsic to being a human being. We react first to visual clues. If you look different, I'm going to be a bit cautious. I may be curious as well, curious enough to take a chance if I have no other information to go on. But if I have been told by others that you are dangerous, I'm staying away. That's why we say racism is a learned thing. It's the reason children do not have that reaction when seeing others that are different than themselves. They are simply curious. And with children that applies to just about everything until they learn better for themselves or are instructed not to do something. Once burned, twice shy. 

 Systemic racism? The will of the majority is closer to the truth. That doesn't do much for you if you are in the minority. But that is what such mechanisms as a Convention of the States or the Electoral College is all about. The intent being to prevent a tyranny of the majority. That Frenchman, I can't remember his name, wrote a whole book about that, about the American form of government. I looked it up, he is Alexis de Tocqueville. An interesting read and I encourage everyone to at least read a brief synopsis of his work. It's not about being intellectual but being educated. I learned a few things that wasn't taught in social studies class. That's what I had. Today it may be called social science. Same thing, different name. Systemic racism and majority rule. Almost the same thing with one exception, we can change the law but not the feelings of humans. Racism is an individual thing, not a system wide thing. All depends on who is running the system. 

 

I have questions

  There are those that say they have answered their calling. Usually that means some religious experience, that's what comes to mind, but it can mean your vocation as well. Some are called to teach, others to paint or write. I'm still listening. I haven't heard any voices telling to do anything but get a job, be productive. It is something of a mindset I suppose. When I was growing up, I didn't hear much about pursuing my dreams, as I did about getting a job. That's the way it was in my house anyway. Yes, playing an instrument, singing, dancing, maybe writing a little verse or painting a picture were admirable pastimes, but that is what they were, pastimes. The business of living and providing for a family was something quite different from that. Childhood is for doing those sorts of things. 

 You could follow in your father's footsteps, that was always a good choice, a respectable choice. Everyone I knew had a father, with the exception of a set of twins. The whereabouts of their father was unknown to me, and I don't recall anyone ever saying anything about that. That sort of stuff wasn't talked about in polite company back in those days. It was none of my business. I never asked. But not everyone followed their dad's vocation and learned a trade of their own. I joined the Navy right after high school and so lost track of the majority of my classmates. I have no idea what most of them did after high school. Some went to college, I'm sure of that and some just got a job. Did any of them have a calling? I don't know, none that I heard about anyway.

 I went in the Navy and spent four years there. It wasn't my calling that much became clear to me, turns out I wasn't that "gung-ho" after all. I returned to my hometown and took up a vocation. I began to learn to do upholstery. It was a nice trade, I enjoyed it, and the results were usually satisfying. It was a good time, but fate intervened and for reasons I'd rather not say, I went back into the Navy for the benefits it provided. I wasn't answering a calling. I stayed there for another sixteen years just doing my job. It's what you do. Following that I got various maintenance positions with the skills I had learned over the years. Never did find that one job that I just loved. All of them were just that, a job. 

 I'm beginning to think that not everyone gets a calling. Fact is, I'm beginning to think it is only a calling when you decide to make a calling. I've always said the hardest person to convince should be yourself and I stand by that. I may tell others I'm certain, I'm convinced, I'm absolutely positive but I always have a bit of doubt. Life has taught me that much, if nothing more. I wonder if I missed my calling or if there ever was one in the first place. Maybe I just wasn't listening. I've been accused of that on more than one occasion. I still get accused of that.

 Now answering a calling and just doing what you like to do are different things altogether. I believe some folks fail to see the distinction and that's why they feel like they have answered a calling. They have convinced themselves of that, sometimes despite popular opinion. It's the only way I can explain why some do the things they do. Perhaps it is nothing more than ego. I do hear an awful lot about people being empowered these days. Never heard that in the 1960's, and in the 1970's we just became cool. At least we were encouraged to be cool. We weren't empowered, just told it was okay to do your own thing. Guess that is being empowered when you think about it. 

  I like to believe that we are all here for a reason. It could just as easily be all random. That all depends upon the view of God you take. Does God plan everything? Or did God create everything and just set it in motion? That's what Deists believe. Seems to me if a God created something it was for a purpose and therefore it would have to do something. That just leaves us with the big question, what is the purpose? When will that purpose be fulfilled? And when it is, what then? I hear a calling for answers. Thing is, I don't have any of those answers. I'm not convinced. I am convinced that there is an answer. Maybe that is what death is, knowing the answer. If that is so, I have questions. 

a random memory

 It's been a few years since we had significant snowfall here in Greensboro, Md. That's if you consider five or six inches significant. I'm still in the mindset that it is more of a nuisance than anything else. I didn't run out to buy toilet paper and milk! When I did go out, I saw a few snowmen around, no snowwomen though guess they are indoors making hot cocoa. Probably need to write an e-mail to the towns' diversity committee about that. Hold some training at the elementary school. But then again maybe some were identifying as women, I didn't ask about their pronouns. But I'm wandering off a bit. I was going to mention that we really don't have any hills around here for sledding. Just a few mounds where you could slide maybe ten feet or so, not much more. And when I was a kid that was what snow was for, sledding. 

 I went ice skating, built igloo's, had snowball fights and made snowmen but it was sledding that I enjoyed the most. I lived on a dead-end dirt road. At the end of that road there were two hills in succession. The big hill was quite steep and quite rocky, beyond that was the smaller hill. That is the hill we normally would sled down as it was manageable under most conditions and gave you a nice long ride as it opened into a clearing. I've ridden sleds, toboggans, washing machine lids, flying saucers, cardboard boxes and the hood of a 53 Studebaker down that hill. Good times and very good memories. Yes, I attempted the big hill a few times and the results were not nearly as enjoyable. Tried skiing on barrel staves one year, not a very smart idea! Jon Claude Killy I'm not! If you remember Jon Claude Killy, you're old! He was winning medals the year I tried skiing down that hill.

 I hear a lot about global warming, and I think we are seeing less snowfall than in years past. I also believe it is just all a part of the normal cycle of things in the universe. The time we are aware of is very small compared to the reality of time. It's like our lives. If we live to be a hundred that is considered very old, a long life, four generations perhaps. In the context of time however, not so very long. Not long enough to have a fair sampling of time. What has changed since 1953 the year I was born? Lots of technological changes but not so much as far as human nature goes. Still arguing and getting upset about the same issues as our parents and grandparents. People are still experiencing the same things they were a thousand years ago. What goes around, comes around. Weather is the same way.

 I was lucky as a kid. I had my own private hills to sled on and my own little pond to skate on. Both were within easy walking distance of home. I had my brothers and sister to play with and sometimes there were kids in the little house at the far end of the road. What we would call section eight housing today, that place was occupied by various families, some with young kids and some with older ones. None stayed very long, just temporary housing. In the spring the owner, an artist, would come and stay until Labor Day. I knew all the neighbors, there were three of them. I could use their bathrooms and warm up if I didn't want to go home just yet. One neighbor, Aunt Francis, we called her, would even make us hot cocoa. I can hear her yelling to us kids on that hill to this day. C'mon in and get some cocoa before you freeze to death! 

 These are some of the memories I have of that time, as I look out my window on a world of white. I have no desire to go out into the world, no desire to sleigh down a hill or strap on a pair of skates. You can call it wisdom if you like, but I just known better than to try any of that today. It's still pleasant to think about, to remember and experience in my mind. But I know what the reality is. I'm too old for that stuff and it is too cold! That is what we make memories for. Memories are intended to be enjoyed from the comfort of your easy chair, perhaps with a warm beverage. I don't need any artificial intelligence, head mounted displays, or virtual headsets! All I have to do is remember and I can experience it all anytime I like. And it's all random. Never know what I'll remember next.   

 

The best choice

 A functional stoner is a person who smokes up in order to deal with stress or to redirect that negative energy into something more productive or positive12. Smoking weed can make people more productive, useful, and happier2. It allows people to think about things differently, stay calm, and realize there may be alternative ways to deal with stressful situations2. A functioning stoner can be defined as someone who smokes up through the day or needs a joint before undertaking any task3.

A functional alcoholic is someone who consumes as much alcohol as someone with an alcohol use disorder, but does not exhibit outward symptoms of intoxication1. They may be able to carry out daily tasks of living without showing clinical impairments2. However, this does not mean that they do not have a problem with alcohol. They have developed a tolerance for alcohol that makes them need more to feel the effects1.

Both of those statements were copied from a Google search. I simply typed in functional alcoholic and functional stoner. It seems to imply that being a functional stoner isn't such a bad thing. After all it can make people more productive, useful and happier. A functional alcoholic drinks as much as a drunk, that's when you are a non-functional alcoholic, but can function anyway. They have developed a tolerance. Apparently, it doesn't make them productive, useful or happier. So, pot good, alcohol bad.

 I'm no scientist, psychologist, psychiatrist or behavioral health specialist. I'm just a regular guy. Some think I'm disadvantaged by not having any advanced degrees, not having attended any classes on a campus. For those reasons I should simply trust the science, accept whatever I am told by the experts as to what is best. In this case I'm being told being a functional stoner isn't a problem at all. I wonder if that has anything to do with the current push to decriminalize the use and possession of marijuana. Many states have chosen to not enforce federal law which still lists pot on schedule one.

  I'm guessing those states figure being a functional stoner doesn't indicate an addiction. Functional alcoholics are still addicted to alcohol you know. Yes, that's legal too although there was an attempt to outlaw the sale of that stuff. We all know what happened. The law was repealed because of the spike in crime, and it was generally ineffective. Also, and probably more importantly, it was an election year. FDR ran on that, promising a repel to the twenty-first amendment. He won, hands down. I've heard that argument being used today, they are going to do it anyway, so it should be legal. If something isn't illegal, you can't commit a crime. Liberal logic.

 It's no secret to anyone that reads my stuff or listens to what I say about pot. It is an illegal substance according to federal law. Until it is removed from that schedule one listing it remains a crime regardless of what the individual state says. Just saying you are not going to enforce federal law doesn't change federal law. But whatever, that point is moot as far as I'm concerned. It's illegal. What I'm trying to understand is why the push to legalize that stuff. What benefit does it provide, what good to society, what is positive about it? Does it really make people more productive, useful and happier. Does it redirect negative energy into something positive? That's what the experts say, according to Google.

 Law, it could be said are the rules of conduct. This what you can do, and this is what you can't. Is that determined by the number of people that want to do a certain action? That is to say, determined by how many choose to obey the law? If the majority of the people decide to just ignore the law does that invalidate the law? Are we going to say the majority always makes the best choices for a society? I don't know about that, ask those groups that have been discriminated against because of their race, creed or religion. I'm thinking that response will be a resounding no. 

 That leaves us with a bit of a conundrum. In our Republic we have established various standards to enact legislation. In some cases, a 2/3 majority is required, in others a 3/5 majority and in others a simple majority will suffice. What is the reason for that? I suspect it is simply because without that nothing would ever get passed. Still the purpose of our laws is to establish a uniform code of conduct. That's what the military calls their laws. The Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's not because everyone is wearing a uniform, it is because it applies uniformly to everyone in the service regardless of rank or anything else. Congress has the authority to change those laws. The president then signs the bill, and it becomes the law. If all of our military personnel just decided to ignore certain sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice would that then invalidate that? I don't care what the Admiral or General says, I'm not getting a haircut, it's not hurting anyone else. 

 I don't believe anyone could possibly believe the world would not be a better place without alcohol and drug abuse. That's always been a problem in every society. It is the abuse of those substances that cause much of the crime, the unrest, and the downright stupid decisions being made by some. Now I'm hearing from the experts if we just did away with guns that would end gun violence, homicide and murder. If we just did away with alcohol, we wouldn't have any drunks either. If we all just followed the instructions on our prescription bottles, we wouldn't have drug abuse. 

 But we should legalize marijuana use because it makes people more productive, useful and happy. Yeah, ok. That's the best choice I guess, people are going to do it anyway. So why do we need the FDA, the WHO, the ATF or any other legislating body? People are going to do all that stuff anyway. Think of the money we could save on speed limit signs alone. Of course, we should all be made to wear our seatbelts. My flying body could hurt someone else right? It's what the majority wants right, to be protected from bodies being ejected from automobiles. Ok then. 

Everyday People

  I grew up in East Hampton New York on the eastern end of long island. That was long before they called it the Hamptons and the rich used it for a playground. Yes, the wealthy were there then, mostly clustered in their ocean front community, playing golf and throwing money at the peasants every now and again. They even had a fancy name for that, philanthropy. I was taught it was really a tax write off. When you have a lot of money you have to give some away in order to save some. I figured it was the same thing as buying something on sale not because you needed it, but because you were saving money. That was in their world not mine.

 In many ways we were quite sheltered and naive about things in the world outside our little community. My parents' generation had gone off to fight WW2 but other than that rarely traveled more than twenty-five miles from home. Those of us that lived below the bridge were a clannish lot, minding our own business for the most part. I was a part of that. Those living above the bridge, the up Streeters we called them, were a bit more contemporary. That's where the business owners lived, the professionals and the cool kids. All of that began to get blurred towards the end of the 1960's. The age of Aquarius. The fifth dimension sang about that in 1969. The age of love, light and humanity. The hippies loved it and those of us below the bridge laughed about it. 

 I tell you this because I went into the Navy in 1971. That is what I took with me. I had been to New York City before, a distance of one hundred miles from home so I was no rookie! It was however my first airplane flight, nothing bad happened. I arrived with my friend, we had joined on the buddy plan, in Chicago and was bused to the Great Lakes Naval Training Facility. Eventually we were assigned to a company. I was in a rifle company (Co, 266) and my buddy was assigned to the band. I did see him once or twice while marching around the base. The buddy plan! We were on the same base, so I guess that counts. We both graduated on schedule and went across the street to attend our respective "A" schools. 

 We were in separate barracks, attending different schools but did get to see each other often. We would meet up and talk about the things that were happening. My friend had a roommate that we suspected was selling and using drugs! That was quite unsettling to us, and we weren't quite sure what to do. Should we report that? It was quite the moral conundrum. 

 I should mention that my best friends all lived above the bridge and were up Streeters! I was a bit of a rebel I suppose hanging out with the cool kids and all. But I had discovered they were pretty much the same as everyone else. The world was changing me. Sometimes we would take a train and escape to some small town away from the Navy base, a place where they didn't look at sailors in quite the same way. Outside that Navy base you were a mark! People attempting to sell you everything from a portrait to give to your mother, to jewelry, and drugs! I recall going to a village called Winnetka. There was a town ice skating pond and an old-fashioned malt shop. We were treated differently there; with respect you might say.

 We graduated our schools and went to sea. I did meet up with him in Germany and in Scotland. Our ships were moored close together, although my ship being a tanker was almost always at a Nato fuel pier when in port away from home. Other ships would be anchored out visiting the same port. But we got together. By then we were both salty dogs and not so naive about the world. Although I wouldn't say that we were really naive, just surprised when we personally experienced what we had heard about, if you know what I mean. There really were ladies on the street corners and they weren't waiting to cross the street. There were those selling marijuana and other drugs. All the sins of the city that I heard about where there, before my very eyes. 

 All of that seems like a lifetime ago and just yesterday at the same time. My friend now lives in Colorado, far from Long Island and the water. We haven't seen each other in years. But we talk sometimes. We still discuss those moral dilemmas we all face in life. We journey back to that time. Not much changes in the world when you think about it. I heard that it was the "dawning of the age of Aquarius" in 1969. I've got to say it has been a slow dawn! If this is what the age of Aquarius is going to be, let's go back. We should have been paid attention to Sly and the Family Stone when they sang Everyday People. We would all be better off. 

[Verse 1]

Sometimes I'm right and I can be wrong

My own beliefs are in my song

The butcher, the banker, the drummer and then

Makes no difference what group I'm in

I am everyday people  

offense

  "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." (Thomas Paine) According to the American Military News.Com Facebook and Instagram have been banning the use of that phrase. There is some advertisement on television that begins with that, but I can't recall what it is they are selling. The sentiment may be, speak your mind and don't be afraid of hurting others' feelings. It could be taken differently though; it could be taken as don't be afraid to make others angry with you. There is a fine line between being blatantly honest and just being spiteful. We have to judge the importance of the message. 

 It is something I find myself faced with often enough, especially in composing these blogs. I don't want to offend anyone, but it happens. It happens when posting comments on my timeline. It happens when posting a comment on various posts and meme's. I expect it will continue as I have a habit of just being honest in my opinions. 

 Thomas Paine never said when you offend someone you are being honest (just telling the truth), just that you aren't afraid. I never set out to offend anyone. It's a challenge at times to express your thoughts without offending others. A difference of opinion is what that is rightfully called, and some get offended by that. Your opinion does not offend me, even when I disagree with that opinion. It may move me to react, sometimes in anger, sometimes with indignation and perhaps even contempt, but I'm not offended. That depends upon the manner in which your opinion was offered. 

 Offended or being offensive? The best defense is a strong offense. It's an ancient military strategy the concept of presenting a strong offense. In that way the enemy is preoccupied with defending themselves. Works that way in conversation as well. If I can get you off balance, a bit upset and reacting to my offensive statement you will respond. Often you will respond with an emotional response rather than a logical one. It's the same concept as, it's hard to remember the objective is to drain the swamp when you are up to your butt in alligators! I don't view it as a loss if you don't change your opinion. I'm not offended. Those that are will often resort to name calling, disparaging and offensive remarks. They are offended. 

 The biggest obstacle to meaningful dialogue is the acceptance of axioms. Axioms are those things that we all agree upon without questioning. They are what we believe to be established as fact. Sometimes that is confused with stereotyping. Another big assumption is that certain actions are systemic generally thought of as being opposed to something or someone. Well yes, there are things that are systemic and not all of them bad. That's usually where the disagreement begins. We haven't agreed upon that axiom. Today the narrative is inclusivity. What that means is accepting anything and everything. There can only be one axiom in that system. It's the one that goes like this, "if it doesn't hurt anyone else it's right." 

 To me that is just a rationalization used to justify your actions. The professionals may call it emotional invalidation. You are saying to me my feelings, thoughts and opinions do not matter. If we all accepted that as an axiom in a society, that society would soon collapse. In order for a society to thrive it must share a common goal. That requires a common set of rules of conduct. A set of "axioms." We call them laws. There is a single axiom that applies; do unto others as you would have others do unto you. A familiar biblical passage. According to Google the first time that was written down was sometime about 2000 years before Christ. It was written by an Egyptian scribe on papyrus. What doesn't hurt others may hurt you and vice-versa.     

what's wrong with that

  Just saw on the news that the fifth district court in Texas ruled that book vendors do not have to "rate" their books according to sexual content. There was a law stating that book vendors had to disclose what sexual content was in books they were selling to schools. It was to be a sort of ratings system like we have on movies. But a suit was filed, and the court overturned that saying it was unconstitutional. I listened to an individual on the news saying how that was banning books and censoring free speech. Thing is, no one was banning any books, they were saying the content of the book as far as sexual content had to be revealed. There were no restrictions on who could purchase or read those books. No one's free speech was being infringed upon, in fact, the intent was to let your speech be heard.

 Now I admit to just taking all that in on the face of things. I'm not going to research all that and write a thesis on it. I have no desire to become an expert on the subject. I am just saying if the movie industry rates their films on content, an act designed to inform the adults and restrict the viewing of that material by younger viewers, I don't see any reason those selling books to a school can't do the same. But one book vendor was claiming it would hurt sales! School districts may not purchase his books with that sort of material in there and that would adversely affect sales. That, according to that person, is an effective book ban. I disagree, no one said he couldn't sell those books, his fear is no one would buy them. 

 Naturally the books in question, or more properly the content of those books, concerns topics that there are varying degrees of thought upon. Should grade school children be exposed to books about homosexuality, gender dysphoria, masturbation, alternative lifestyles, and all that sort of stuff? And should all that come with pictures? The fifth district court in Texas says, it's a constitutional right. Amazingly that court is conservative. That doesn't make it right however, not in my opinion. Meta and Instagram are being sued by federal authorities over the content on their platforms aimed at children. The case centers around those corporations not doing anything to protect children from online predators. So how can other federal authorities say providing a "warning" label on textbooks for children is unconstitutional. Isn't that protecting the children? 

 An argument can be made that each school district should have "assigned" content advisors that read each and every book in the library and the classroom. Their job would be to flag those with inappropriate content. Who gets to decide upon that? Is each school district to create its' own standard? If you don't like what the school allows you can remove your children from that school, go to another district. No, that isn't a viable solution at all. There has to be a common standard. 

 We certainly don't have a problem setting a common standard with other things. There are age requirements for a vast number of things. And according to the experts our brains aren't fully developed until we reach twenty-five! If we listen to the experts those books shouldn't even be in college libraries, those kids aren't developed enough for that! 

 The issue, as I see it, lies with the vendors concerned with sales. Yes, it's true that vice sells best. Anything that is sensational or controversial in some fashion always sells. Since the invention of the printing press risqué novels were written. Even before that scribes were writing that stuff! Drawings and photographs of a sexual nature have always been produced, sold and quite popular. And often it was presented as "educational" material. 

 At what age should we introduce complex adult themes to our children? It varies according to the child no doubt about that. There is concern today, by the experts, that children are experiencing puberty at an ever earlier age. Experts note that early puberty is associated with anxiety, depression, eating disorders, early sexual activity and substance abuse. Those experts have no explanation for why that is happening. I'm thinking it is because we aren't allowing our children to be children! I'm thinking it is a physical response to a mental challenge. We are expecting our children to behave like adults and encouraging that. Hard not to think that way when I hear people saying five-year-old kids can dictate what gender they are!  

 No one is banning books! There are those of us that would limit access to certain books and materials. Kids will see that stuff soon enough without it being provided in the school library. The struggle is in establishing a moral standard. That has always been the struggle. The current ratings system for the movie industry was implemented in 1968. " The current movie rating system was introduced in 1968 by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) chairman Jack Valenti1. The rating system replaced the earlier moral censorship guidelines known as the Hays Code1. The new rating system was aimed at giving parents the information they need to decide whether a film is appropriate for their family. " Why not do the same with books sold to schools? What's wrong with that? 

let's change that

  As long as there are differences among people there will be hate, bigotry, prejudice, resentment, intolerance and phobias. That is what needs to be understood and accepted. It is just a natural fact and will never change. The only thing that can possibly have any effect is the threat of punishment for displaying any of that. You are not going to change what motivates others to those behaviors. That is what Jesus attempted to do, along with every other religious leader in history. Some religions teach the only way to do that is by force! Yes, we have all learned about that if we have been paying attention to history. The truth is all major religions in the world have taken that route at some point. Onward Christian soldiers, Jihad, self-defense, freedom fighters, whatever you wish to call any of that. It is what happened and will continue to happen. 

 The United States of America, a nation unique among the nations of the world, with our constitution, our forming of a Republic, is an attempt at that utopian society where all men are equal. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Lincoln proclaiming that nation shall not perish from the earth. Today many calling our government a democracy simply because it implies majority rule. If we all agree, it's a law. What is not being taught is that it is a Republic that protects the minority from the whims of the majority. That doesn't happen in a simple democracy where the majority simply makes law. It was a Republic that freed the slaves! That wasn't democracy in action that was a Republic in action. Remember it took a war to get that done and it was the southern democrats that pushed the issue to that end. They are called democrats for a reason you know, just as Republicans are called republicans. An oversimplification you say? No, just a fact. Same as my opening statement is just a simple fact.

 Now I'm not saying we need to accept any of that. We all agree, we all know, we all would love for all of that to end. It isn't going to. So, the only recourse we have is punishment. The problem being, what is punishable? Oh, there are the obvious actions, violence, slander, offensive language and that sort of thing. But what of those things that we can't prove but just assume? 

 If a person of one race commits a crime against a person of a different race is that the basis for the action? We don't know that for certain but seems likely doesn't it. Can you prove that in a court of law? No, you cannot unless the accused provides the evidence to convict. Today we can check their social media accounts or something like that as evidence. What groups do they support? Guilty by association. And in that lies the problem with punishment. 

 The preponderance of the evidence is applied in a civil trial, not a criminal trial. And can we really make bigotry, prejudice, resentment, intolerance and phobias a criminal offense? We have done so with what is called "hate crimes." They are prosecuted by "perception" and is that really justice? That is what the witches at the Salem Witch trials faced, guilty based on a perception. It's just a very slippery slope when you start legislating perception. I've been told because I do not have a college degree that means I'm less intelligent than others. I've been told because I am white, I enjoy privileges. I've been told I was too skinny, too fat, ugly and handsome. All others' perceptions of me. Valid and prosecutable? Only in a court of public opinion, not in a court of law. 

 The bottom line in all of this is a simple one. As long as there are those that disagree with your opinion there will be conflict. Are we ever going to get everyone to agree on everything? Nope. Will we continue to place blame on others for that? Yup. It is always the other guy that is at fault. That's how it looks to me, my perception of the problem. You most likely feel the same way. Funny how that works isn't it? Let's change that. Of course, it is you that needs to change, not me.  

untainted time

  I have written that I believe there is little one can say or write that hasn't been said or written before. That was reaffirmed this morning as I had a though to write this blog. I was thinking of a place in time. That phrase, that title has been used many times. A quick goggle search returned a lot of references. I won't be including footnotes in this posting but then again, I'm not writing a thesis to obtain my doctorate. That Harvard professor should have done so and is now paying the price, a small price as she keeps her position at nearly a million dollars per year, but a price nonetheless. But I digress. I had thought about a place in time.

 That thought came to me as I was having a brief discussion with a childhood acquaintance. We share a common history, geographically if not socially. We were talking about my hometown and his. He still resides in that area, and I haven't lived there since 1975. My memories of the place are stuck in time, it genuinely is a "place in time" for me. I've only returned there twice since 1975 and both visits were only for a day or two. I went to my high school reunion, the twentieth I believe in 1991, only about twelve people showed up. Then I went another time when we buried my father. That is the extent of my personal experience.

 On Facebook I often interact with those folks that I went to school with, worked with or have some connection to those living in my hometown. We share pictures, stories and tales. There are times when I feel like someone from a history book. What I mean is, stating facts that were facts then but have since been changed, rewritten or presented in a different way. History is like that and will always be like that. Call it cancel culture, call it progress, call it whatever you like, but the past is always the way we remember it, not the way it necessarily was. My memories of that "place in time" have not been corrupted by time. I'm still giving a firsthand account of a time fifty years ago. I'm not claiming to be a historian just that I lived that history. I report that history from my point of view. 

 There are times when talking with others they mention certain stores or places that are new to me. Happens quite a bit actually as things have changed over the last fifty years. Yes, it has been a half a century and I forget that sometimes. Certain phrases, ideas, or customs falling in and out of favor. What was bad is good what was good is bad. It's the suddenness of the changes that startle us. And yes, for me, a great deal of that is sudden although it happened twenty-five years ago or more. The old saying you can't go back home is very true, home is where our memories live, the physical place changes continually. 

 The strange part about all of that is realizing that even those you grew up with, went to school with but never left the area have a different view of that history. That's the part of memory I say has been tainted by time. The changes are so gradual as to go almost unnoticed, the reasons or causes forgotten or being justified. What many will call rewriting history. I'm still working on the first edition of that history. My sources are frozen in time. I've only attended one class reunion and so have no basis for comparison over time. Are we the same people we were back then? The answer is definitely a solid no, no we are not. Although from a very limited sampling on social media I can see why I didn't hang out or fit in with a certain crowd. Societal differences? I imagine that is what a professional would say or cultural influences perhaps. It is all just what we called being cool. With some classmates you are cool, with others not so much. Parental influence being the major factor in my opinion. 

 Well, the truth is we each have our own version of history. Our own vision of what was and what wasn't. We all tend to modify the past a bit to justify the future. Whether it is to place blame or to establish justification, that is what we do. The past is what defines us. No matter how hard we try to remain current, up to date, "cool" or today's watchwords, empowered and inclusive, the past is what will define us. We are all a product of the past. You can try to rewrite the past, or simply remember it. I just remember it. But there are times when I attempt to explain the past, to justify that time, and that is just as silly as trying to rewrite it. The past is what you remember it to be. You can change the facts, but not the memory.