Influence

  I spend a great deal of time on Facebook, far more than I should but call it a guilty pleasure. I was here when everyone was farming. Then the farms all closed down and the political storms arrived. Users were being blocked and people were being placed in "jail." I was incarcerated on several occasions but eventually paroled. I don't hear much about any of that anymore. The truth is, I don't hear much from anyone anymore. I still post my morning greetings and receive those in return. That is one thing I take pleasure in, a sort of check in. There are a few that will enter into a bit of discussion every now and again. Those are getting fewer. I'm not certain as to why that is, but I have to consider that it may be me. I don't see a lot of back and forth between others however so maybe it is just a general thing. This social media stuff is still in the experimental phase. Facebook is twenty years old now, just a generation. The generation that began using it has aged and interests changed. Facebook is for old people, that's what I've been told. It is useful for selling things though, as evidenced by all the advertisements. 

 Now we have to start being aware of artificial intelligence. As if there weren't enough fakes and phonies on Facebook, a computer may create more. Although I think you would have to say replicate more so than create. Hey, is that you? I may never know for certain. Being somewhat a skeptic most of the time I'm not easily taken in. I find it an annoyance at times, this inability to just believe what I read or see with my own eyes. I seldom click on any link provided. It isn't so much that I don't trust the person sending it, as the link itself may be the problem. I don't know how to verify a link is 100% safe and secure to send to anyone and I'm sure many others of my generation don't know either. I'm not certain I want to expend the energy to find out, most links I would send are just an amusement anyway, so why risk it. That's what annoys me. Facebook started out as a way to compare photographs of students at Harvard. What was the initial intent? 

 Facebook is still an amusement to me. I do enjoy the meme's and stories. I like seeing the photographs of distant and interesting places in the world. I enjoy posting my attempts at humor and enlightenment. Something strangely satisfying about posting a picture of your cake just out of the oven. It's nice to brag about the grandchildren and their accomplishments. I like hearing about those I knew years ago or simply went to school with. It's fun to "see" how they have changed or remained the same. The perceptions of our youth are certainly different than the perceptions of today. I enjoy a lively discussion but sadly that doesn't happen often. People tend to act differently when protected by distance. Facebook is a bold new world! 

 I'd say Facebook is in its' second generation now. The first one imploded during the Trump years. The big division occurred. For a while Facebook became somewhat of a police state. Free speech was being stifled and those decisions were influenced by big money. The rise of the influencers! There are those that are paid to be social media influencers. In the past we called them salesmen. Yes, there job is to get you to buy a product. There is little difference between selling a physical product and an idea. All it takes is the proper influence. All you have to do is convince someone of what they need. Today it is more about convincing others I can give you what you want. It's a subtle distinction. Works best when you don't allow other salesmen to pitch their products. 

 The thing is it has always been that way. You buy a product or donate to my campaign with an expectation of a return. It is something you want. Doesn't matter if it is a bicycle or world peace. What influences your decision? Everyone is doing it is the most popular reasoning. The only thing standing in the way of most decisions are your moral values and the law. When you can be convinced that the moral choice is the immoral choice, everyone is doing it, all that needs to change is the law. The second generation of Facebook will play a role in that. It's an influencer. I just don't think it will have as much influence as it enjoyed the first time around. 

Sometimes

  I was called awful yesterday. I didn't know it until I got up this morning and began checking my Facebook page. I was just sipping that first cup of my morning coffee and there it was. In fairness to the commentator, I was told I could be awful so I'm taking that as I'm not awful all the time. I try to find the positive in things as much as I can. Mostly I'm just not easily offended although I will enter a defensive mode rather quickly. What was in the old days called a quick wit, or being a smart ass, depending. I own all of that. I won't use an old cliche and say it doesn't matter, it does matter, but it doesn't change who I am. I don't want to be called awful but sometimes I am, to some apparently. It really didn't come as a surprise.

 That tends to happen when someone doesn't agree with my opinion. I make no claims on being expert on any subject or topic and so everything I offer is my opinion. I often will not provide any "citations" to enforce my opinion. I'm not writing a thesis or taking a final exam on anything. Much of what I have learned is based solely on experience and observation. It becomes much easier when you are detached from whatever topic you are discussing. That was called objectivity at one time, nowadays terms like racist, misogynist, hatred and ignorance may take the place of that. Usually accompanied by some name calling. Again, none of that comes as a surprise. It's human nature. It's why we are still fighting wars after thousands of years and many of those wars are over the same thing. 

 I just don't think it is awful to tell the truth of things. It may be awful to hear, offend your sensibilities a bit, or hurt your feelings, but the truth isn't awful. Yes, I know, it is my truth. Everyone has their own truth. I feel the same away about that when you call me awful or ignorant. That's your truth, not mine. Still the obligation remains, to tell the truth as I see it. The offering of my opinion is a gift, you can either accept it or not. I admit it is better when you politely decline that offer rather than throw it back at me. Either way, it doesn't change the truth as I see it. 

 There are times when you need to be made uncomfortable to facilitate change. That's the simple fact of the matter. In my experience the things that make me uncomfortable are the things I am most likely to change, like rolling over in bed. Sometimes there are things I can do and sometimes there isn't anything I can do at all. It's a fallacy that you can change everything, no you can't. There are universal truths that will remain regardless. 

 I think it is a good thing when I make others uncomfortable with a truth. It may be my truth or yours, that isn't important. What is important it that I made you think about whatever it is I'm offering my opinion on. The weight of that opinion is determined solely by you! It's satisfying when that weight causes a shift. The objective is to effect a positive change. Remember I'm telling you what I think so that change should be what I want. That's the positive. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. 

 It's quite easy to get others upset, that takes no thought at all. It's far more difficult to get others to examine their truth. Most will simply dismiss an opposing opinion outright! They may begin to provide "citations" to reenforce their idea. Those citations may be a higher education, statistical evidence, polls and the opinions of highly respected individuals. Could be I am just too old to understand! That is one of my favorites. Well because you can only gain so much experience, see so much, and learn so much, there's a limit on that! I'm just too old. Sometimes, I'm awful. 

just living

  Called one of my oldest friends for his birthday. Richard James Pratt is his name and I've known him since the sixth grade, back in the twentieth century. We graduated high school together in 1971, joined the navy together and even worked at a job afterwards together. But time and circumstance conspired, and we went our separate ways. I went back in the navy, and he went to Colorado! We have gotten together a few times over the years, but those meetings have been far and few between. We have stayed in touch however, phone calls and an occasional card or letter. He has chosen not to use any form of social media, zero net presence I think they call that, off the grid. It is still "BTI" with him, before the internet. And that is the only method of communicating with him.

 We had our usual conversation, talking about the old times and the old days. We laughed a bit remembering certain events and happenings. We talked about other friends we share in common and how they are doing. These conversations are almost always the same. When you are not close together, sharing daily activities that is all you can really talk about, the past. It's true that with old friends you can just pick the conversation up wherever you left off the last time you spoke. I understand why that is now, it is usually the same conversation. Don't misunderstand me I'm not complaining about that, I look forward to talking with him and reliving that past. I will never grow tired of that. The only issue when having a conversation on the phone, long distance, is in bringing up a new topic. It is a matter of context. It takes a long time to describe the context of what you are trying to say. The response will always be what you expect from twenty years ago or more. Does that make sense?

 Eventually the conversation will turn to a bit of current events. The changes in the world are discussed. We do that and lament the loss of civility in society, in a general sense. We complain about the cost of everything, the kids, and how everything has changed. What we once thought of as growth, gaining maturity and wisdom now becoming nostalgia. And with that occasionally the question, what were we thinking? Turns out in retrospect we weren't doing a lot of that. We were just living. As we wrapped up the conversation, with the usual optimism of we'll get together soon, maybe this summer, Rich said something that stuck in my mind. He said we sure could use a few positive things in the news. He wasn't just talking about the national news or the local news but news about our friends and classmates from those days of yore. Mostly you just hear when one of them passes away. And that is becoming all too frequent. 

 The thing is none of that is new. It has been that way since the beginning of time. It's a constant change, sometimes sudden but mostly gradually, subtlety and unnoticed. As I thought of that a song began to play in my head. I've found that is often the case, a song, a poem or a passage from a book begins to play almost like it was triggered. For those old enough to remember like pushing B3 on a jukebox. This time it was Anne Murray from 1983. She is signing the chorus: we should use a little good news today. Ain't that the truth. 

                                                                 

Yeah, nothing much changes, except everything.

why nineteen

  I grow increasingly annoyed and angered by all the advertisements on television concerning disabled veterans. The Wounded Warrior Project, HelpDav, and a host of others. All tell the sad reality of war and combat. The loss of life and limbs. The disabling injuries received, and the mental scars left. Each one of these organizations imploring me to send just 19 dollars a month, that's less than 35 cents a day, to help these heroes! There is the disclaimer attached, not associated with the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

 What angers me about that? Well currently Biden wants to send an additional 325,000,0000 dollars to aid Ukraine. That's three hundred and twenty-five million dollars! That's the same as saying 19 dollars a month for 17,105,263 months! Yes, seventeen million one hundred and five thousand two hundred and sixty-three months! Same as saying for the next one million four hundred and twenty-five thousand four hundred and thirty-eight and one half years! How about we donate that to one of those organizations! Yeah, that's what get me riled up! Better still how having the Veterans administration providing all the services our troops need! I think it is bullshit that I have to be asked to donate! The SPCA runs their ads for adopting stray animals and they want 19 dollars a month too! Same price tag! WTH is up with that?

 It is something I have noticed this figure of 19 dollars a month. St Jude's, 19 a month, The march of Dimes, 19 a month, and the list goes on. Why 19? What's the deal with two hundred and twenty-eight dollars a year? Even public television has a plan for that. I figure there has to some tax advantage involved. All of the organizations asking for that 19 dollars are non-profits. 

 That doesn't mean those administering the programs aren't getting paid though. Now I'm not implying any of those folks have anything but the purest of intentions, nothing funny going on there, I'm not saying that. The CEO of Wounded Warriors does gets paid 385,705 thousand yearly. That's thirty-two thousand one hundred and forty-two dollars a month. Thing is there shouldn't even be a need for that job. Our government, our tax dollars should be funding all of that! Instead, we are busying funding a war so more people will get injured and killed! Then I'll be asked to donate to help those casualties of war! Billions of dollars! And I'm being asked to donate 19 a month! And trying to determine exactly what "program expenses" are is quite the daunting task. How much of the money actually goes to that? There is no clear answer. 

 I don't know it all just seems ridiculous to me. The veterans administration should be providing all the services those veterans need. I hear about the United States borrowing money, so we don't default on existing loans. Then we send billions of dollars to foreign countries. I turn on the television and I'm being asked to donate, only 19 dollars a month to help our heroes! Why should that even be a question? I pay my taxes and I want that money used in the best possible way. One of those is taking care of our veterans! No money for anyone else until our Veterans have been taken care of! Not one dime, not 19 dollars a month, not 19 dollars a year! If we can fund a war for Ukraine and a half dozen other nations we can fully fund and take care of our veterans! I'll donate my 19 dollars a month to St. Jude's research hospital, in business since 1962 and never had a scandal. 

 

meeting the elephant

  Allow me to preface this blog with a bit of an explanation. A good many of these narratives are simply what I think about. They aren't meant to be anything more than that. The best part about writing these thoughts down is I don't hear many disagreements, although doubt sometimes creeps in. After they are posted I normally do not get much feedback. I'm always happy when I do, but not always happy with what is said. Imagine that. My audience is limited. Judging by the reaction some of my comments on different sites on Facebook, especially the New York Times, incite that is a good thing. I could see people with pitchforks and torches outside my window! What follows is what I have thought about many times since 1993. I am not looking for any comments on this, just offering a perspective.

 You hear much about veterans these days. The commercials, the ads, the political campaigns, fundraisers, tributes, and accolades abound. Those who served is the phrase most often used. Much is said about sacrifice and duty. I've even been to events where they have asked veterans to stand up and be recognized with some applause, an expression of gratitude. I don't like doing that and only do so when my family members insist I should. I never know what to say when someone says, thank you for your service usually I just say, you're welcome. I'm just uncomfortable with all of that. I'm not uncomfortable claiming any benefits I have earned from that service, however. But that is where things get a bit sticky for me, in my thoughts. I question whether I truly earned those benefits. 

 Now I'm not talking about the contractual benefits, I fulfilled that contract. Yes, I earned my retirement income and my medical benefits. I did so by completing my contractual obligations. But do I deserve everything else? The recognition, praise or respect of the general public? You see, I see it this way. I was in the fighting forces that guard our nations freedom. That declaration was printed in large letters on the wall when I went to basic training. It is the first directive in the Code of Conduct. " I am an American fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life, I am prepared to give my life in their defense." I took that very seriously and still do.

 During the civil war there was a phrase used, "meeting the elephant" to mean meeting the enemy on the field of battle. It meant you have been engaged in actual combat, bullets flying, bayonet charges and all of that. It meant your life was seriously at risk! My 3rg great grandfather had met the elephant. A good number of my ancestors, my family members did just that in each succeeding war. My own father having done so in the belly of a B-24 Liberator flying over enemy ground. Combat, the fight for your life, for a cause, for an ideal, as a duty, an obligation, and a service. Meeting the elephant.

 The thing is, I have never met the elephant. Signing the papers, saying you would, is not the same as doing it. That's my feeling about that and the reason I am left thinking about that. The question being, would I? Not really would, but could I? Some may view that as being lucky and I can see that, but it leaves me with, I'll never know. And for that reason, I hesitate to accept any accolades or profess any great sacrifice made. I signed up for the job, and never really had to do that job. That's how I see all of that. I trained, I was ready, but I didn't actually have to do any of that. I wasn't ever in any real danger. Only heard the order to go to general quarters a few times when it wasn't a drill. When there was a possibility that the ship could be attacked. It never was. 

 For me, accepting any praise, any recognition for being an American "fighting" man is akin to stolen valor. I never fought anyone directly, never met that elephant in the room. And that is a big elephant to face! Yes, with the enthusiasm of youth, the belief that somehow only the others will be injured or killed, you may rush to battle. It's one thing to talk about in the barracks, on the ship and in the clubs, quite another to face that reality. I signed up for the course, but never took the final exam. I'm untested. And that is what I'm thinking about, my perspective on all of that. It's something I swore I would do, but would I? I'll never know, and that doesn't leave me much to brag about. I did my job and fulfilled the terms of the contract. I'm enjoying the benefits of that. But I'm just enjoying what I earned, that's how I see it. Untested and unproven I can't claim anything more than that. 

a shore thing

  I live on the eastern shore of Maryland. That is a general geographic area covering the peninsula of Maryland and Delaware. Mostly it is rural with farms, chicken houses and watermen. It isn't unlike the portion of Long Island where I grew up. I wound up here completely by chance. I had been assigned to a ship stationed in Earle, New Jersey that was going to deploy almost as soon as I reported. The Navy paid to move me of course and all I had to give them was an address. I didn't want my boys living or going to school in New Jersey! Being from long island there was just this natural bias. I also wanted my boys to go to a school that was rural, feeling it would be safer and the education better. My wife was from Maryland, Clearwater Beach, but knew about this eastern shore thing. So, while on leave we went there had a look around and found a home to rent in Greensboro. I've been here ever since. 

 My eldest brother was living on the Eastern Shore of Maryland back then, although I didn't know it when I first looked around. Turned out he was about twenty miles away. I would see him every now and again. It's funny because that twenty miles might as well had been a hundred. It's hard to explain but if grew up on eastern long island in the 1950's and 60's driving a distance of 25 miles was considered a road trip! That was a considerable distance, and, in my mind, it still is. For that reason, we just didn't get together all that often. Looking back, I sure wish I had made more of an effort. But distance wasn't the only factor involved in all of that either. Like everyone else there were family issues and differences. It's only on the Hallmark channel that families come together to "celebrate" each other. Still, more effort should have been made. 

  Having lived here for over twenty-five years now I have seen growth. I wouldn't call it urban sprawl, but things are changing. Many are moving here to live in a rural setting and commuting to those areas where the employment pays better. Hard to make a good living being a farmer, waterman or chicken farmer these days. The taxes and regulations certainly hamper all of that. Same story as all rural America. It's just tough. 

 But with that comes changes as well. Those commuting back and forth soon want what they can get in the larger towns and cities without having to drive that distance. And they start building that larger town or city right here! The old, local folks, the generational residents get pushed to the side. And because it is the eastern shore of Maryland a very popular sales pitch, slogan or whatever you want to call it is; it's a shore thing! If Royal Farms wants to sell fried chicken, that's a shore thing. If you want some fall decorations, it's a shore thing. Everything is a shore thing! The implication being it is something special, unique and local. A source of pride manufactured by retail businesses. 

 I like it here in Greensboro, always have. It is a small town and quiet. Not much going on in Greensboro, nicknamed, "The City" That harkens back to the old days in Greensboro when it was a happening place on a Friday night. I've heard lots of stories about that from the more senior residents I have spoken with. A riverboat used to come every once and while and dock in Greensboro. A big deal from what I've heard. Greensboro had a dance hall and a movie theater. Yes, it was "the city." But that was long ago now. Today there are far more homes in Greensboro, and far less businesses. But the county seat, Denton, is about seven miles away and has all of that and more. It is crawling our way. 

 Easton Maryland is in a neighboring county, still on the eastern shore. They host the Waterfowl Festival each year and that is a big deal. If you are into hunting or fishing or the carving of decoys you most likely have heard about that. People come from all over the country to attend that festival. Easton itself is a rather large town for this part of the shore. It is where the majority of the doctors and lawyers are located. The hospital is there, and all the other clinics and specialties can be found in Easton. It is the hub of commerce. 

 It is an old town and in the historic district the houses face the street, their front property line being the sidewalk, and most of the front porches are only steps from that sidewalk. All of those old houses have large front porches. I can imagine in times gone past people sitting out on them in the evening or on a Sunday morning greeting their friends and neighbors as they strolled along the streets. Today I'm certain no one sits out on those porches, and no one is taking a stroll around town. You don't speak to strangers, and it is best to stay off the streets! In fact, that area is starting to look a little run down, a little tired and worn. Those big old homes are expensive to maintain, most have been divided into apartments, and the only parking is along the street. 

 Times marches on as the saying goes and things change. I can see the changes happening and feel a little sad about that. But that is the feelings of a senior citizen, the excitement of change that you enjoy in your youth fades away. Don't fix what isn't broken is a popular adage, and one I subscribe to. The older I get the more I want to go back. I suspect that is true with the majority of us. For seventy years I have sampled what life has to offer and made my choices. Barring some miraculous occurrence taking place I figure I will most likely remain here in Greensboro. I like to dream about moving to the mountains or to some rural area by a river, lake or stream. But that isn't going to happen without an influx of cash! And that, that is Shore thing as well. 

a decent respect

  The litigating of morality. Is that the true function of a Republic? A republic is government by representation. The power lies with the people. That is the essence of a republic. The laws established by that republic should align with the morality of the citizens. That seems basic enough. We vote for representatives that align with our personal moral and ethical values. That is what we claim to do, what we are expected to do and what those seeking that vote hope to project. The more diverse the population the more difficult it becomes to find that common ground. A great deal of that is because of cultural influences. 

 So how are laws made? We all know I'm just a bill on capital hill. Someone says, there

 should a law about this. So, they write to their congressman who agrees that there should be a law. That congressman then writes the "bill" that goes to committee. The committee, a select few congressmen decide whether it should go to the house of representatives for their consideration. If it doesn't, it dies in committee. If the law is approved it will be sent to the president for his signature. The president can just say no, veto the whole thing and it all starts over. That's a lot of people that must agree with whatever law is being proposed. How many of those people did you vote for? Remember you only get to vote for one member of the house of representatives. That's one out of 435 seats. You can vote for two senators out of the hundred seats. You can vote for one president to fill one seat.

 Now laws are designed to enforce the morality of the people making those laws. We are concerned with, what is fair. What is reasonable? Is it reasonable to say that free speech means I can say anything I want? No, it isn't, and that is why we made a law about that. We all agree that it is morally wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater. That's not free speech, that endangering others. The second amendment to the constitution reinforces our right to defend ourselves. We all feel that we are morally correct in doing so. I have the absolute right to self-defense. You have no right to infringe upon that ability. There are two sides to everything! One side is good and the other bad or at least in contradiction to our personal moral belief. 

 A big discussion is going on here in Maryland about books in the school library. Those books deal with human sexuality. One book title is Gender Queer that is drawing a lot of attention from parents. There are a few others mentioned on the news, but I don't recall their titles. These books contain illustrations as well. Some say those illustrations are pornography while others say there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not going to get specific about what those illustrations depict. Let's just leave it as graphic and would certainly be R rated at the least, possibly X rated. Those fighting to keep those books on the shelves are saying it would be a book ban. And we can't ban books! I agree with that, we shouldn't ban books, but we should restrict access to them under specific conditions, like age appropriateness. You do have to be 18, by law, to view porn. So, to me, there should be no question about those books. They are not strict clinical manuals describing human reproduction. No, that isn't the subject of those books. And no one bought Playboy magazine for the articles! 

 No one is saying those books should be banned. What they are saying is parents should control when, and if, they want their child to read that. The school librarian could monitor that, requiring a permission slip from home before issuing the book. Yes, I know, kids will get their hands on that stuff regardless, just like alcohol and drugs, but that's no reason to just put them on the shelf. The internet abounds with that sort of thing and children can access that as well. Having those books available in the school library isn't their only way of getting that information. 

 So, in our Republic we have established a moral standard regarding pornography. You are supposed to be at least eighteen years old to purchase or view any of that. Are we now to say there is no such thing as porn? Are we to allow all of that to be on public view, at any age, in any venue? I realize the standard is different in different nations and cultures around the world. I'm not concerned with what those other nations and cultures are doing. I'm concerned about my nation, my culture and the moral and ethical traditions of my nation. 

 No new law is being proposed with any of this. No one is saying we need a law saying those books are banned, that they can't be printed, read or distributed. We already have a law saying you need to be eighteen years of age. That law establishes a moral standard. It concerns me when there are those that would disregard that entirely, dismiss it as an old-fashioned idea. For me all I see are a group of people pushing an agenda. As with a lot of things these days, they change the name and try to convince me that it is something different. Substance Abuse Disorder is still an addiction, and the one with it, is an addict. An alcoholic is still a drunk! Change the name on anything you like but it doesn't change what it is. And what is depicted in those books is pornographic in nature. It's pornographic regardless of what genders are involved whether it is two or twenty-two! Access should be restricted. 

old and new

  Had a bit of a back and forth yesterday concerning the Bible. Now we all know there are two testaments combined into one book containing 66 chapters. The Old Testament and the New Testament. There was some discussion about what portions of the bible are to be believed and what parts are not. Really the discussion centers around whether the New Testament replaced the old. I'm in the camp that says it definitely does not. It is interesting to note that the first five books of the Bible are called the Torah, the book of Moses. I don't recall being taught that in Sunday school but learned it later on. The Old Testament was written long before Jesus. The New Testament tells the story of Jesus and when God will return to the earth. 

 The discussion centered around a specific idea that the New Testament replaced the old in regard to certain actions. Human sexuality was at the forefront of that discussion. The Old Testament speaks a great deal about all of that and is fairly specific as to what you should and shouldn't be doing. The issue being discussed was reconciling the New Testament with that Old Testament. The New Testament doesn't address that directly. Proponents of the New Testament replacing the Old cite that Jesus never said anything about that. I agree that there aren't any passages directly related to that and attributed to Jesus. Thing with that is just because he doesn't say you shouldn't that doesn't mean you should. I defer to the Old Testament in that and if you are a believer that testament is the word of God. That word wasn't changed by Jesus who wouldn't oppose or overwrite his father. For that reason alone, I feel the argument that the New Testament doesn't say I shouldn't is invalid. 

  This discussion began with a meme, as is often the case on Facebook. This meme was suggesting that if you don't practice every "Christian" principle such as charity, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, feeding the poor, clothing everyone and embracing their sexual preferences, you don't really believe in the Bible. The exclamation being, you are not following Jesus! I pointed out that unless you are barefoot and broke wandering around the countryside you aren't following Jesus. You really don't get to pick and choose what is "Jesus" like and what isn't. You do have to follow the whole book, all 66 chapters and both volumes. It's my feeling it is the belief that is important more so than the manner in which you practice that belief. Jesus did say, "he who believes in me does not believe only in me, but in the one who sent me." So, that means I should believe in whatever the one who sent him said. A no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

  Hate the sin and love the sinner. It's an adage we have all heard. What does it mean? Well, that is where things can get cloudy. The tricky part is in defining just what loving someone is. I'm not quite up to the task of giving a definitive answer to that. I know what it isn't. It isn't allowing others to do wrong without telling them they are doing wrong. And that counts no matter how many times they repeat the action that is wrong. Repetition of the wrong doesn't make it right! If you love someone, you have an obligation to them. That obligation is to give them the best advice, counseling, consolation, and support that you can. There are times when that requires a firm hand, rebuttal or just saying no. It's the reason we are called the children of God because we are as children! At least most of us will act that way given the opportunity. Everyone is doing it.  

  Spare the rod and spoil the child. Old Testament proverbs. What does it mean? To spare, is to use sparingly, with caution and forethought, not with reckless abandon. The rod. In biblical times the rod was a symbol of authority. It was a tool as well. It was used to guide, protect and defend. So, sparing the rod was in actuality constraining your authority, a caution to exercise sound judgement and administer punishment fairly. If one does not do that the child (person) is spoiled. It speaks of discipline. Discipline in and of itself is not punishment! In fact, discipline guides correct behavior. 

 I also believe there is no right way or wrong way to practice your faith. There is simply right and wrong. If the practice of my faith requires injuring others, that's wrong. I'm not talking about hurting your feelings though, I'm talking about physical harm. If I couldn't say anything that might upset you, cause you discomfort, then I'm no friend. I say this often, Jesus said go and sin no more, he didn't say keep on sinning and I'll keep on forgiving. In one story Jesus finds a man previously healed in the temple and says this: “Now you are well; so stop sinning, or something even worse may happen to you.” Sounds like a warning to me. He may have hurt that man's feelings, but it is sound advice. 

 I do enjoy these discussions. Some may get angry, upset, indignant even. How dare I question anything concerning the Bible and the word of God. That isn't the part I enjoy, however. I like hearing what other people are thinking about such things and what their reasoning may be. I can disagree with their reasoning without getting mad about it. Granted there are times when I am "enthusiastic" about the topic, perhaps excessively so, but that doesn't last. I think of it as a lively debate. Well, until the name calling begins and the personal attacks. Then, depending upon my mood I may stand my ground or retreat. Mostly I stand my ground. It's a fault of mine perhaps. None of that happened in yesterday's discussion.   

it's cool

  The state of Maryland "legalized" the use of marijuana a short time back. I put legalized in quotes because marijuana use and possession is still a federal crime. Just because a state refuses to enforce that law it doesn't legalize that law. I won't go into that discussion at this time, however. But I live in an upstairs apartment and my downstairs neighbors are obviously taking full advantage. They are a young couple and I get it, it's the thing. They don't create any disturbance, no loud parties or anything like that. Both have steady jobs and are working toward whatever future they have planned. Good for them and I fully support them in their efforts. It's nice to see a young couple doing their best, gives me hope for future generations. My only complaint is when the smell of that stuff drifts up into my apartment. Somebody is selling them skunk weed! Hey, I was young once, back in the day when you bought that stuff in back alleys and measured it with your fingers. Four fingers to the ounce. Or so I was told anyway, I wouldn't have any first hand knowledge of any of that.

  That happened last night, guess they were celebrating something. The odor was quite strong and woke me out of my sleep. I did recognize what it was though and rolled over. I was reminded of my first experience with that product. That happened at the Great Lakes Naval Training center in 1971. I had finished basic training and was moved across the street to the training center where I would be taught about steam engineering. I was to attend Machinist Mate "A" school. A machinist mate is concerned with a ship's main propulsion system and auxiliary systems as well.  My dorm room was actually just a cubicle. The front side was open, no door there. On either side were two bunk beds and two desks. The outside wall had a window. That was it. The bathroom and showers were at the end of the hall communal style. I was assigned the top bunk on the left hand side.

  So, there I was sleeping in my bunk when I woke up and smelled smoke. Smelled like the carpet was burning to me. I looked down and there were three guys standing in a circle by the window. They were passing this cigarette around. Now being the nice guy that I am I spoke to them saying hello. Then I offered them one of my Marlboro cigarettes saying no need to share I have enough for everyone. This made those boys nervous. I remember them asking me if I was cool. I replied sure, I'm cool. Heck who isn't cool. I don't think they believed me as they threw their cigarette butt out the window and quickly left. That was the first time I had actually seen and smelled pot. I was to see it quite often after that and during my years in the navy. That was one of the first questions asked when going to a new command, are you cool? That quit when I reached the rank of second class petty officer. by then, you're a lifer and lifers aren't cool. 

 I don't care if someone is smoking pot. I don't agree with the legalization of its' use for a number of reasons. The reasons don't matter to anyone but me, so I won't bother with those right now. I'm just amused at times. This new generation, well two generations now as I've been a grandfather for over twenty years, rallying for legalization, using the same old arguments I heard back in 1971. The terminology has changed a bit, but they still use a "code" language to fool us old squares. I admit I'm not familiar with the latest terms however. Being cool and having some Mary Jane I'm thinking is out of style. I'm expecting at some point all of it will legalized. I've watched as gambling, by whatever name you want to call it, has become the normal thing. In fact, gambling revenues are funding education programs, at least that is what we are told. The days of having your "book maker" and placing a bet secretly is over. Now it's lottery games, casinos and online wagering. A perfectly acceptable pastime, nothing unsavory or disreputable about any of that. It's cool!   

a different view

  Looking at the past and getting a different view. That seems to be what is happening to me these days. My father passed away almost 35 years ago. Since then, I've lost one brother, my sister and my mom. My remaining brother stays distant from me for unknown reasons, the stuff of families I suppose. I'm not going to try to make any excuses or explanations for any of that. It has contributed to this review of history however, this new look.

  I'm discovering that history is only as permanent as you allow it to be. The story can change, be modified, revised and rewritten. History, it turns out, is a mixture of fact, fiction, desires and disappointments. The telling of that history is dependent upon the current state of the storyteller. I'm entering a more factual phase in all of that. Time can cause a detachment. It isn't that you forget but you accept. No longer interested in providing an explanation, providing an excuse, or harboring a desire for something you felt you wanted, just telling the story. 

  Each story is unique. We have all heard that said a thousand times, mostly as an excuse. It's a method to justify our choices, our actions over the years. Until you have walked a mile in my shoes. The thing is, looking back we often see the same thing. At some point we will pause, review those steps and change our shoes. That's where I am now. The past is no longer chasing me, and I'm in no hurry to go forward. We are all told we should set goals, something to work toward, a motivation. But I have no goal today, nothing in particular in mind. I just take each day as it comes. And that, that is enough.

 All this came to mind this morning for no particular reason. I have no idea why these thoughts randomly pop into my mind. I like to think it is just the filing system in my brain doing a bit of rearranging, making room for some more information. I've read where they say we only use about 10% of our brain and other studies saying we use 100%. No one is saying we use all of it all the time though. Also, parts may be preoccupied at times and that is what leads to those instances where we just do something dumb. Happens quite often to younger people. I'm thinking that is because younger people are easily distracted by anything that is new. There isn't much new in the world, not really. 

 I thought about a question I was asked frequently in my younger days. What do you want to be when you grow up? I never did have an answer for that. I didn't know then and still don't to be honest about it. I wasn't encouraged to be anything. That's a simple truth. The big goal I was set was to graduate high school. That's all I heard from my dad about goals. I was going to graduate high school and that was that. What I was to do after that was less clear. That I was moving out the house was plain enough, no staying there after high school. I was expected to get a job, move out and do whatever. I was never told to be anything. And my dad was everything. 

 What I mean by that was dad worked at many jobs, had many skills and abilities. He was a carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic and waterman. He could weld, braze, solder and knew how to fly an airplane. He could drive any vehicle with wheels and had the license to do so. One thing he never had though was a career. I guess you could say I have had that as I retired from the Navy, although I don't think of that as a career. That was simply something I did, for twenty years. I've done lots of things before and after that. 

 So now that I'm grown up, what am I? Am I what I wanted to be? Yes, I guess I am as I don't want to be anyone else. I wouldn't mind being a rich me, that would be alright, I guess. If I didn't like that I could just give the money away and I'd still be me. Some may say I'm nothing. Well, that could be true. I've never wanted to be anything in particular. A jack of all trades and master at none as the saying goes. That's what I am. That's what dad was too. Hmm, it's a different view alright. 

a strange feeling

 Through the miracle of modern technology, I was watching a bit of video streaming live from the church of my youth. It's really something if you stop and think about it. First off, I can say I was watching a live stream, and you know exactly what I mean. Doesn't seem that long ago that would have left you scratching your head, he's looking at a stream? But I'm actually watching a church service being conducted two hundred and eight nine miles away from where I am sitting, in real time. Really something. The video is so clear I can hear and see the people as though I were there. The background is equally as clear. It was the background that captured my attention.

 As I watched I was explaining to my wife that is the church where I was baptized. I looked and noticed the baptismal font had been relocated in the church. It was at the rear, off to the left-hand side but now was nearer the front and on the right-hand side. Today if you mention font most would think of the type of lettering you picked to use on the computer. I'm using the default font, whatever style that is. I often choose Times, New Roman when I have to pick one. But I'm wandering a bit. As the processional took place, I told my wife how I would have been the one carrying the cross at the head of that procession. Lots of memories concerning all of that. How I started out in the jr. choir and eventually moving on up to become the cross bearer and assist the reverend during holy communion services. That procession hadn't changed much as I remember it just containing more priests. I saw three. 

 That was the church where I took my first communion. It was the church where my sister was baptized, took her first communion and got married. She was in the choir with me and both of my brothers. Years of memories filled my thoughts. The church building has undergone renovation that much was obvious to me. The old church sure looked spiffy. The woodwork all polished and shiny, the walls bright. That long red carpet still going up the center aisle. There were some changes in the area of the altar, the position of the railing changed somewhat. I spotted what appeared to be organ pipes above the entry door that weren't there before, at least I don't remember them being there. All the pipes for the organ were located in a little room behind where the choir sat. I imagine that would still be the case.

 I haven't been to a service in that church in over fifty years. The last time I remember going I was home on leave from the navy. I went, in my uniform and was greeted by Reverend Davis. It was Reverend Davis that had baptized me, that had guided me through my time in that church congregation, and on to becoming an acolyte. He asked if I would like to lead the procession once again and I readily agreed. At this time, he had an assistant, if that is what you call him, a young priest just starting out. Reverend Davis introduced him to me. He greeted me and said, I'll see if I can get you some robes to wear. Reverend Davis looked at him sternly and spoke. I think he has uniform enough, don't you? Nothing more was said, and the services were conducted. 

 I watched the services as they were live streamed for a short while. Much has changed over time. I had heard of the passing of Reverend Davis years ago. I have watched on other occasions for brief periods of time as the service was conducted. It all seems so different now from the time I was attending that church. The services seem more Catholic to me rather than Episcopalian. Not that I'm that familiar with the Catholic method of worship but I've heard stories and have been to a catholic service in years past. I had been told the only difference between us Episcopalians and the Catholics was the praying to the  saints. We had the same saints, but didn't ask them for anything, we just went straight to the man.

 Yes, the service was different. While I was in that church awards were given for perfect attendance in church school, choir and being an acolyte. I had received every one of those awards. Another cycle had been completed and as an award I received a signed prayer book from Reverend Davis. For sixty months of perfect attendance! Some years back I discovered that edition of the Book of Common Prayer had been retired, revised and replaced. I remember thinking I've got so old they replaced the prayer book. Lots of things have changed over the years with the church and what is taught there. It is a comfort to see that old building still there, services still being held and traditions continuing. The service was no longer familiar. I watched from the distance, staring into the past, my past, but that past is different. Quite the strange feeling actually. 

Yea and nay

 The Congress is in continual debate. That is, after all, what their function is, to debate a topic, a subject, an action or proposed action and decide upon a course of action. So, what is the problem? Why doesn't that seem to happen in a timely or orderly fashion? The problem lies in the proposed bills put before congress. Each bill actually contains many different and often unrelated proposals. Instead of presenting a single topic, a single line item to be discussed and debated the waters are muddied with unrelated topics. Take the one facing congress right now. What does aid to Ukraine have to do with securing our own border? Separate issues entirely in my mind. But one is dependent upon the other. The Democrats are accusing the republicans of withholding funding for Ukraine. The Republicans are saying the Democrats are failing to secure the border. There shouldn't be a barter between the two parties! That isn't how the system is supposed to work!

 I think we should pass an amendment to the constitution that forbids all of that. Each item presented to Congress should be a single line item, period. No more of this deal making. I'll give you this if you give me that. That needs to end! The decision is supposed to be what is best for the country, our country, the United States of America. That is what those representatives were elected to do, represent the American people. And this should be obvious to anyone paying the least amount of attention to what is going on. When an elected official makes a statement like, "we need to pass the bill to know what is in the bill" that should be a gigantic red flag! Why should a bill be passed without everyone involved knowing the full context of that bill. I understand all the inclusions and exclusions in the contract with my bank before buying the car! I don't buy the car and then read the contract. I also don't include that contract with my vacation plans, home remolding plan and what I'm going to give to charity. Each item is separate. 

 It's something I encounter on social media all the time this "bundling" of ideas and concepts. I may mention one thing and the argument I get back is totally unrelated to that topic. I get frustrated with that really quickly. I expect many of our representatives in congress feel the same way. The price of gasoline is rising and the response I get might be, Denmark has more electric vehicles than we do. And your point? A socialist country provides free healthcare. yeah, and we are a Republic, what's your point? These bills presented to congress often contain multiple items. There are currently 12,959 bills before Congress! About 907 will become law. If you divided those bills into single line items that number would be significantly larger. I just wonder how so many bills make it out of committee in the first place. 

 Congress is in session about 147 days each year. Yeah, they debate, review, discuss and decide on those bills 147 days a year. That would be like you or I going to work two days a week and maybe a little bit on a third day. But that is when legislation get passed. Of course, the politicians themselves will tell you how hard and long they work and all the sacrifices they make. They work practically 24/7! Couldn't prove that by me, is my response. Didn't you campaign to get that job? You didn't just apply, you actively sought out the job! In my way of thinking you should be at work every day same as the average American taxpayer. That's 238 days on average. That's the minimum as far as I'm concerned. No bill should make it out of committee that includes more than one line item! You get one request at a time. Bills will be decided one item at a time. Today we decide on the border, tomorrow we decide on Ukraine, and Friday we decide if we need to conduct gender studies. One has nothing to do with the other. All in favor say Yea, those that oppose say nay. That's how that works. 

 

Opinions

  With all the talk about the cognitive ability, or lack of it, concerning President Biden there have been several interviews on the news with various experts. One even had an eighty-year-old man take the test they are asking Biden to take. They were explaining what a few of the questions were while this gentleman completed the exam. He failed the test even though in the interview he certainly seemed just fine. They hadn't chosen some doddering old man, quite the contrary actually, by appearance he seemed fine. No explanation as to why exactly he failed. Then a rather disturbing statement was made by this expert. He says, the majority of people seventy and older have cognitive failure. Hey, what a minute I'm seventy! And I can tell you this, I've got your cognitive failure right here! I'd like to ask that expert how he feels about that when he is seventy! I'm betting he would tell you he is the exception, even when he's one hundred! 

  I haven't done so, but you can take a test online to determine your cognitive powers. I may do that as an amusement. I have to say I'm quite skeptical when it comes to all of this testing for mental health and cognitive ability. When there is no standard, no set parameters and no real method to measure any of that how can you? For me, it falls into the category of opinion. Now I'll agree that some people's opinion carry more weight than others, but that in itself isn't proof of the validity of that opinion. I'll put it this way, there are a lot of educated damn fools in this world. Another issue is that the "standards" those parameters that can be found in the DSM, the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders undergoes revision on a regular basis. So, what was a disorder yesterday is just fine today and vice-versa. And in European nations they have a different manual altogether. And all of it is a matter of opinion.

  I'm no fan of Biden. He has refused to be tested. I have to say, in all honesty, I can't blame him for that. It seems to me it is a test you can't win. The issue for me with that test is who determines the answers. They did have the man that created the test they want Biden to take on television. He quite naturally said it will show the degree of cognitive loss a person may have. I wanted to know how much you are supposed to have in the first place and how do you quantify that. I keep hearing your brain isn't fully developed until you are twenty five! And this guy says by seventy you are in cognitive decline. That only gives you forty-five years in the sweet spot. So, when should you take the test and how often? Should you have to take that test before holding any political office, or any position of authority for that matter. 

  It is a bit of a quandary. My feeling is Biden does have some memory issues and is past his prime. He tends to rattle on and get lost in his thoughts quite a bit. He is a bit unsteady on his feet and that presents more of an image problem than anything else. A great deal of the power of the President does rest with appearance. Other nations will judge based on that whether it is valid or not. A president should inspire trust in the people. That's a big problem with Trump too, many people believe he will do exactly as he says he will do. They may not agree with the actions he wants to take but they believe he will and is able to do so. I don't believe that is the case with old Joe. He doesn't come across as a strong-willed man on the top of his game. That's not the image in the people's mind. 

 Twenty-fifth amendment  Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

 That is what it says. That's a problem. In a situation like this, where the disability is not clear, obvious, verifiable and undeniable because it relies upon an opinion, can we expect this action to take place? Why would the controlling party choose to do that? Why would they want to place the Vice-President in power during an election year when there is little belief that person could win in a national election. What other candidate would the democrats have to offer? Especially given the current plan is to prevent Trump from even being in the race. Can't win if you can't run! Goes a long way in getting your man reelected, even if he does have to be replaced shortly thereafter. 

 There is another possible scenario. Biden can voluntarily refuse to take office if he wins the election. He can tell the people how concerned he is and that his age is becoming an issue, He can wax on about only doing what is best for the nation. In short, he could leave office as some sort of martyr in his own eyes if not in others. Doesn't make any difference does it, if that is what you believe. And he believes what he is being told! His cognitive ability, or should I say inability, to distinguish between the king and the pawn is real. He will do as directed. Only time will tell. It all comes down to opinions. 

Novid

  Listening to my medical reporter on the morning news, I mentioned her yesterday as well, she was talking about those people that haven't contracted Covid over the last two years. She said those people are being called Novids. I just had to smile at that as I am a Novid and so is my wife. My smile faded a bit as she explained that researchers don't have any explanation for that but mostly, they are old people. Yeah, that's me alright. I'm old but I haven't gotten covid! I listened to a few of their theories. One of them is perhaps, because of my advanced years I have been exposed to various coronaviruses and built up an immunity to this one. I'm thinking maybe it is because I haven't received any vaccine to weaken my defenses. But that is just my non-medical judgment of the situation. I've know quite a number of people that have received that vaccine, several boosters, wore masks and all that, and had covid 19. But that's just coincidence I suppose. Not very scientific.

 When I was a child, I had whatever shots and immunizations that were required by law. Then I joined the Navy and received whatever shots and immunizations the government felt was necessary. When I was a kid, I didn't have a choice and when I was in the Navy, I didn't have a choice about that either. Okay, I could have refused and been discharged for disobeying a lawful order. Yes, in my days in the service you followed the orders of your superior officers and legal authority or else. I wouldn't have had to walk the plank, but my career would definitely have been over. After retirement I had a choice. I haven't received any immunizations, vaccines, or any of that stuff since 1991. No flu shots, no pneumonia shots, no shingles, no covid, no boosters none of that. And as a result, I have become, a Novid. And that means I don't need to take Plaxovid! That's the latest drug I'm told I should be taking if I get a sniffle or cough. 

 Some will say I just jinxed myself. I don't believe in any of that nonsense, trust the science I say. I may get that Covid one day, no telling. I could get hit by a bus or win the lottery. Lots of things that could happen. I will say this much. I'm 100% certain if I had used any of those in home testing kits that the government was giving away, I would have tested positive for covid. That was, after all, their intended purpose. Fuel the paranoia, trust the government. I wasn't buying any of it, in fact, I wasn't taking it for free. Some will say I'm an anti-vaxxer! Wasn't long ago when getting that label put you on the far right, probably A Trump supporter. Turns out I'm neither of those things, I'm a Novid. 

compromise

  I do not have to capitulate to be the better man. That is my feeling when it comes down to it. I do not have to justify, agree, or in any way support anyone else's position. I do not accept that I should. I have no problem with offering the proverbial olive branch and it remains up to the person to either accept or reject that. That is their part of the equation as far as I'm concerned. If they chose to not accept that branch, so be it. I will not seek any further interaction, just go about my business as usual. 

 I'm not buying into this whole philosophy that I should simply accept whatever it is the other person presents. I'm not buying into the whole idea that by just going along with everything some universal peace will follow. No, life doesn't work that way at all. Life requires discipline, structure and standards. We sometimes call all of that governance. The fact is governance begins with self-control. The individual has to accept that they are not at the center of the universe. Spock said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. A noble sentiment indeed. Thing being, that isn't how humans normally react to a situation. Remember Spock is half Vulcan and logical. Being humans we can sometimes be logical, but only when it suits our purpose. Science fiction or science fact? 

 I should exercise sound judgement. That is a basic skill to learn and master as an adult. Maturity is the acceptance of reality. It has nothing to do with how you feel, your emotional state or desires. Judgement is a binary thing. It is either right or wrong in any given situation. Yes, the judgement may very well be different based on circumstance, motivation or practicality, but it remains binary. It is either right or wrong in every situation. Gender is the same way; you are either male or female regardless of how you feel. 

 Our judgement is based on personal morality combined with the ethics of the society in which we live. That is what we use when passing judgement upon an action. It is the action that is being judged, not the individual. What is acceptable to you? Beyond that feeling, your personal feeling regarding an action, is that action acceptable to the society? That will depend upon the moral and ethical base of that society. And that is what laws are all about. Our laws define those parameters. The mature individual will either accept those laws, abiding by them, or work to change them. The founding fathers of this nation spelled out, quite plainly, their reasons for rebellion. Those reasons were based in morality! Yes, that is what inspired that rebellion, fueled the fires of rebellion. We felt justified in issuing that judgement against the King. In the Declaration of Independence, it is spelled out. At least 15 of those lines begin with the word HE. He, being the king. We judged his actions against us and rendered judgement. 

 This judgement was justified by this statement " appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," And what is rectitude? It means moral integrity. It means doing what is right and just. The supreme judge of the world refers to God. Some of those involved with the writing and composition of that declaration where Deists. They didn't doubt the existence of that supreme being just the degree of intervention that deity may have with us mortal men. The importance lies in that it was a moral judgement. It was only right. 

 I grow concerned with laws today and the moral framework being established by those laws. That is what the king was doing to the colonists. He was imposing his own moral judgments as the law of the land. That judgement was being based on what was best for him. It was based on his feelings, his wants and desires, not on what was best for the people. For some it was acceptable, they were more than willing to capitulate, to just go with the flow to avoid any confrontation. They were willing to surrender their morals. They did so by the sacrifice of ethics. Many of today's laws are designed for the benefit of the government, not the people. Many are designed to create a dependence upon that government. And isn't that exactly what the king desired as well? 

 It could be argued that it was commerce, money that really fueled the rebellion. No doubt it motivated many to join in the cause for freedom. A cause that could be justified with a simple statement, it isn't fair. Immediate needs are hard to ignore. That is being utilized even today.  Many are more than willing to just "go along with anything" as long as it puts money in their pockets. As long as it makes life easier for them.  All that is necessary for that to succeed is the removal of rectitude. Can that be accomplished by litigation? Possibly, that is if you believe you can litigate with the supreme judge of the world. Can you get him to compromise? Or is it right and wrong. 

a casual observation

  Today is Ash Wednesday. I don't practice the Catholic faith but am well aware of the significance of the holiday. It's all about penance. At least that is what it used to be as it was explained to me. The whole ashes on your forehead to remind you that from the dust you came and to the dust you will return thing. I remember seeing the other kids in school having those ashes on their forehead and the adults as we went about our day. Now it only happens once a year, but I haven't noticed that practice as much as in years past. I don't know, maybe that traditional act is losing favor in the more modern church. A lot of things have changed with the Catholic church and with the other denominations as well. But I admit I'm not up on all of that as I rarely attend services anymore. No particular reason, I just don't. 

 Today is also Valentines Day. I've been hearing an awful lot about that but haven't heard any mention of Ash Wednesday on the morning news as of yet. I also haven't heard anything about Mardi Gras. I had forgotten about that until my wife mentioned it this morning. Fat Tuesday was yesterday. I must have missed the news stories on that as well. Ash Wednesday and Valentines Day coinciding is a rather rare occurrence. The last time was in 2018. There is also the feast of St. Valentine. That celebrates the Martyrdom of a monk named Valentine. Lots of debate about who he really was, there are several Valentine candidates, but none have any association with being a big romantic. All that came later on. Cupid, arrows, candy and love. Lots of money to made off of all of that. Experts say about one hundred dollars each will be spent on Valentines totaling over 14 billion dollars. 

 I don't what the kids in elementary school do these days in regard to Valentines day. I would expect a lot of that has changed. In my day it was expected that the boys would be giving valentines to the girls. Today I'm not sure about that at all. I remember making an envelope that was taped to the front of my desk. That was where the valentines went that were given to me. We got to look at them when we had our "party." Some guys and girls got a lot, some not so much. I don't really remember how many or how few I got, I wasn't traumatized, marginalized or suffer from deep depressive feelings either way. None of that was a concern! There was candy, cake, peanuts, gluten and everything else that may trigger an allergic reaction. I don't remember that ever happening though. I just remember kool-aid being spilled and frosting getting on my papers. 

 I was watching the news and listening to all the reports of violence and crime. Lots of talk about the juvenile offenders and the need to rehabilitate them. The experts all saying we shouldn't incarcerate or punish those kids but rather rehabilitate them. They just need a good talking to! What they are really trying to say is we need to start "raising" our children right. What they don't want to say is, that starts with discipline. But it is the same old story over and over. Not to worry they are formulating a new crime plan. 

 Then came the medical reporter. She is a doctor that talks about medical issues every day. Could be about most anything and I find it informative, if not a bit biased at times. But in a sign of the times, and in keeping with the Valentines Day theme, the expose was about penile fractures! Yes, it was explained a study had been conducted and the incidence of penile fracture is greatest on Valentines Day. The report went on to explain all about that particular injury. There was a warning issued before that piece aired saying you might not want the kids to see that. I had to chuckle about that given what they are teaching the kids in kindergarten these days. I just had to sigh and shake my head. Penile fractures, really? Well, Happy Valentines Day, be careful out there all sorts of hazards to be aware of. From dust you came and to the dust you shall return. It's a warning. 

things change

  I posted a few comments concerning the half time show for the Superbowl this past Sunday. It featured an artist I wasn't familiar with, Usher and apparently, he was joined by some other famous performers, also unknown to me. I get it, it is pop culture, what sells these days and targeted at that audience. They are the ones spending the big bucks on this entertainment. I've read where some are saying the NFL has gone woke. That's just another term for being "hip" as we used to say back in the old days. I never did join in with the "cool" crowd, I wasn't hip or happening. It just didn't appeal to me. 

 There was some talk, some pushback being fueled by social media about the singing of what is being called the Black National Anthem at that event as well. I was watching but was unaware of who that singer was and what song she was signing. Guess I'm way out of the loop on that. I couldn't tell you what song that is. I did look it up and read where it is Lift Every Voice and Sing. It was written in 1899! I read where that song has been significant in Black culture ever since. Never heard of it before but then I'm not black. I read where some Blacks began calling it their national anthem and that is one reason, they wanted it played and sung at the football game. I'm guessing it all has something to do with the big kneeling issue. Personally, I don't have an issue with that, no problem as far as I'm concerned. I will sit/stand quietly while it is being performed and expect you to do the same when the national anthem is played as well. No problem. 

 It does make me think and question some things, however. I understand some are saying that it is black culture. The song, originally written as a poem, was about the KKK terrorizing black Americans in the south during the Jim Crowe era. The original intent was a song to celebrate Abraham Lincolns birthday. A song of hope for true equality in the future. Those "Jim Crowe" laws began in 1865 during reconstruction by the Democrats in the south. They were eventually abolished altogether by the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965. So, my first question is, what is black culture? What is culture? One definition goes like this: "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group:" Okay, so how are Black peoples culture any different than mine? Those people have been living in the same nation as I have, and I haven't noticed anything particularly different about their "culture." 

  I realize I'm not supposed to say anything about any of that. I'm fully aware of the history of blacks in America. I'm not justifying or excusing any of that history, but view it as what it is, history. All the injustices of the past cannot be erased or compensated for. The best that can be done is to acknowledge that injustice, take "ownership" as is the popular thing to say these days. Personally, I can't take ownership for what others in the past have done. My ancestors, as far as I know never enslaved anyone. My roots are European and Scandinavian. None of them were even Vikings, so I can't take ownership for what the Vikings did either. I don't think of myself as living in a white culture. My skin is white, I'm told I'm white and I'm certain many blacks see me as white and make certain assumptions about me. I admit I see black people and make certain assumptions about them as well. What we call stereotyping. And what we all know isn't the truth or accurate.

 All of that is based upon perceptions. What you might call the current trend in fashion. When I was young a common perception of black people was they dressed "to the nines" and drove big fancy cars. All blacks can sing and dance and played sports. They were tough people because they had to be tough. And they all had a chip on their shoulders! What's the perception today? The blacks now dress with sagging pants, dreadnoughts, and are angry people! They aspire to be thugs and have that street cred. They rap about women and drugs and killing people. They all feel entitled to compensation and reparations! If anything is wrong, it is the white guys fault. Is any of that true. 

 I've read where in the black community there is much discussion about who or what is truly black. Sociologists have written extensively about all of that. Just what is a black person supposed to be? I wonder just what a white guy is supposed to be. Having been in the service and traveled extensively I can tell you all that depends. When overseas going to certain nations I was told, try not to look American. I wasn't certain how I was supposed to do that. The obvious was, don't wear a cowboy hat, blue jeans or anything patriotic. The objective was to fit in. Yes, we were a target. Not all Americans are cowboys though. Yeah, I know, surprising, isn't it? Not all black people are black either. Well, at least not the perception of what a black person is supposed to be.  

 So, I'm left with a simple question. If that song is the Black National Anthem just where is the black nation? I've been under the impression that the objective here was to be one nation under God. Isn't that what equality is really all about? Following the civil war, it was proposed that the freed slaves be given forty acres of land to farm and do with as they pleased. Those families could create their own towns, cities or whatever. They would govern themselves while remaining a part of America. It was believed even then that freed blacks were unlikely to receive fair and equal treatment from the ones that had held them in bondage. But that plan was revoked, withdrawn and thrown out by Andrew Johnson after Lincoln was killed. There have been proposals and movements advocating for Back to Africa initiatives that have not met with any support from the blacks themselves. Nobody wanted to go back to Africa! No, this is their nation now. 

 We can write all the laws we want. We can institute all manner of plans and programs. We can apologize, recognize, and offer restitution. But all of that will not change what is in the minds of people. You can't legislate morality. And that is what we are really talking about, the moral choice. To treat others as though you were the others! And that will never happen as long as we insist upon proclaiming our differences as a cultural thing. As long as we insist, we are somehow different from everyone else. As long as we reinforce that thinking by "empathy and understanding" without calling out the hypocrisy in those actions causing the unrest, unrest will continue. No one will be satisfied. 

 America and the American Republic is the big experiment. All men are created equal with liberty and justice for all. With those few words the mission is spelled out. That is what is proposed. Can that ever be achieved? Hasn't happened yet, not in all of human history. There are always those that feel just a bit superior in some fashion. It's a part of the human condition. There will always be those that find justification for whatever actions they choose to take, good or bad. 

 There will always be those that feel they aren't being treated fairly. One Nation, under God. Thing is a nation can only have one culture, that's kinda what makes it a nation. That doesn't mean that nation can't recognize and respect other cultures just that there will be a dominant national culture. And that is the struggle. It's an identity crisis. You can identify any way you like, but that doesn't make you whatever it is you are identifying as until the dominant culture (identity) agrees with that. Someone will always disagree. You may not agree with me on this. I'm not surprised, offended, or hurt by that. Give it time, things change.  

The sporting life

  I've reached that age where the pop stars are a mystery to me. When I heard they were going to have Usher at halftime I thought, couldn't they get anyone else? Then I thought, wonder how they chose which usher gets to perform. Maybe they should just have an organist at the football games, like they do with baseball. At least the organist could entertain the crowd while the usher brings them drinks. I did tune in and some woman was singing with a bunch of backup singers. I didn't know what she was singing until later I found out that was what has been called the Black National Anthem. That explains why I didn't know what it was, I don't live in a black nation. It didn't get me upset because I didn't know what that was all about. Whatever. 

 I did watch the ballgame because I wanted to see the commercials. Once again, I was disappointed as I didn't see any I thought particularly funny. The babies playing pickle ball was mildy entertaining. The majority of those ads I didn't know what they were selling. Not very good advertising when that happens. A home rental company? I think there were some ads for that. Considering the price for an ad to air during the game I'm guessing their fees must be significant. Even the Budweiser Clydesdales weren't that good. C'mon a wagon load of beer and a dog kissing the horses nose? Not sure what that was supposed to be. Guessing some kind of woke awareness or something. 

 They did have a few Jesus commercials. Not sure you can sell Jesus in an advertisement, but worth a try anyway. I did read where there is 100 million dollars behind this commercial campaign. Jesus gets us. The underlying message is a bit disturbing, however. The message is you can do anything you want, be anything, engage in any and all activities and Jesus will support that. I don't think Jesus would be washing anyone's feet outside an abortion facility and saying, I get you. Remember Jesus upset the money changers in the temple. Remember Jesus telling that woman, go and sin no more. He wasn't saying I get you, keep on sinning and I'll keep on forgiving. Yes, Jesus gets that we all fall short, and his message is to do better. Jesus was a teacher, which means to instruct. It doesn't mean I get you and will go along with whatever answer you provide. That's not how that works. 

 I do think Reba did a fine job singing the national anthem. I always enjoy it when singers just sing the song without doing vocal acrobatics. The game itself was entertaining. I like it when it is a close one and everything seems to be fair and balanced. I'm amused when the announcers make a big deal out of something like Kelce yelling at the coach or a player drops the ball. Yeah, they are young guys playing a game and emotions get high. It's amazing to me the amount of money involved in all of this. I think they said Mahomes gets a two-million-dollar bonus for winning the Superbowl. So, you get a bonus if you actually do the job, they hired you to do. Gotta love that. They call it an incentive. Strange my incentive was always I got to keep my job. Well, congratulations to everyone. Oh, and Gronk missed that kick! Fan Duel was expecting to take in millions in bets, I'm certain that they did. And Taylor Swift was there too. I've heard about her. I'm not completely out of touch. And to the 49er's all I can say is, shake it off. 

 The Superbowl. It's an amusement nothing more. I feel that way about all sports. Players come and go but mostly they just get old. Some become analysts and broadcasters. Some retire with millions of dollars and others not so much. Some will be selling those rings they fought so hard to earn in a few years. Most will be in their thirties when they retire from playing, at forty or so they are old. It's an amazing thing when you think about it. The average salary for an NFL player is 2.8 million. A basketball player earns about 9.4 million and a baseball guy, 4.9 million. I wonder how so many wind up having so little after they retire. Interesting is that the average pension for an NFL player is 42,000. Not much when you think about it. Hard to live a sporting life on 42,000. 

DIY

  I was reading an article concerning "aided" suicide. In this particular article they weren't talking about euthanasia and stressed the difference between the two. To me it is all just a bit of rationalization. It was pointed out that aided suicide requires the individual to take the lethal cocktail of drugs as prescribed by a physician. The reason that is different is because the physician doesn't actually put the drugs in your mouth or inject them. The thinking being, in that way they are not responsible for your death. Interestingly enough it was stressed in that article if you are considering suicide without the assistance of a medical professional, you should call the suicide prevention hotline! There is help out there! 

 Some are calling this death with dignity. That's a fine title for a book or movie but a bit of a misnomer for killing yourself. I don't see much dignity in killing yourself. I, like many others always thought doctors had to take the Hippocratic oath and that it said among other things, to do no harm. Turns out that isn't true. Not all doctors take that oath, some take a different one and some none at all. There is one translation from the Hippocratic oath that comes close saying. "I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous." I suppose a doctor could say to himself or herself, killing this patient will benefit them. And yes, writing that prescription makes the physician responsible for that death. If a gun manufacturer is responsible for what a criminal does with a gun, shouldn't a doctor be responsible for what happens with his prescription? 

 Now I understand this is only supposed to happen when the patient has a terminal illness. How soon after finding that out is acceptable? What's the waiting period on that? The sooner the better right? Sure would be a significant cost savings to the patient and/or the family. And let's not even consider the inconvenience of having to care for a terminally ill person. Yeah, they are going to die anyway, so what's the point. Might as well get it over with. This is what that article was talking about. As I said, not euthanasia which requires active participation on the part of the doctor. But I find that a bit of a stretch, a very fine line indeed. The duty of the physician is to preserve life, not take it. That's my opinion anyway. It's one of the qualities I look for in a doctor.  

 That Hippocratic oath by one translation does say the physician will refrain from any action which is deleterious. Deleterious means, doing harm. I'd say ending their life is doing harm unless the doctor feels they have the authority to decide on that issue. Yes, call me strange or whatever but I don't want a doctor thinking killing me is going to be helpful. Personally, I wouldn't even ask a doctor to do that, to put a person in that position. It's something that is easy enough to do on your own, especially in today's world. Easy enough to get a handful of pills to swallow that I know will kill me for certain. I certainly don't need a medical degree to figure it out. 

 What troubles me is where all that is going. If I can be hauled into court, ostracized, vilified and practically lose my livelihood because I refuse to make a cake for you can't the same thing happen to a doctor if he refuses? Why not? I've got cancer, it is going to kill me, maybe not right away but I don't want to wait, give me that prescription. If you don't, I'll sue you for malpractice or accuse you of being prejudicial. You have to give me that prescription! I asked you for it. 

 So, how long can you live with a terminal illness? Here's what the professionals have to say. There is no life expectancy, although terminally ill patients may only survive for a few days or weeks after they have been diagnosed. In contrast, others can live months or potentially years. The survival rate of a terminally ill person is a rough estimate given by the physician based on previous data and the progression of the disease. Still, it only partially reflects the exact span of longevity. You know what, getting old is terminal. You will die from that. 

 The professionals say there is no life expectancy after being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Could be days, weeks, months, maybe years. Same as when you are born, you might live days, weeks, months or even years. Of course, if you were aborted that wouldn't happen. Who gets to choose that? Is that strictly a women's choice? If so, the doctors have to provide that service, don't they? Or do doctors just get to decide when you can die; after you are born? After all, the question is theirs to answer right now. That's if the law allows that choice to be made at all. If I say I want to kill myself the majority of the time I will be instructed to call the suicide prevention hotline, or in extreme situations placed in a mental health care facility! The reason for that, it isn't right to want to kill yourself. That's not the dignified choice at all, unless maybe you are a Japanese samurai that has suffered dishonor. Even then it's a do-it-yourself situation. 

The times

  I often see a posting from the New York Times concerning a column they must have in their paper. I don't recall the exact title for it, but people write in asking an ethical question. Being a person that enjoys such discussions on morality and ethics I usually respond. More often than not my first reaction will be, you have to ask about that. Many writing in are surely morally bankrupt judging by the question or the explanation of their dilemma. Situations that I wouldn't have to give a second thought to, circumstances where my response would be automatic. I am left wondering about these people. My hope is that they are just "thinking" out loud and not really looking for the answer, but rather venting their frustrations.

 I know I'm just an old country boy, whatever that is supposed to mean, without a college degree, a portfolio of investments and believe in traditional marriage. I also don't proclaim to hate Trump and vilify his every word or action making me one of the MAGA crowd in some people's eyes. I'm not woke, waving brightly colored flags and concerned with who did what first. I'm not even concerned with what happened to my ancestors two hundred years ago, or yours for that matter. I don't believe the world owes me a thing and not everyone has to love me. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. They might hurt you if you say the wrong thing within arm's reach of me though. 

 All of that does find me on the opposite side of the spectrum with the majority of these ethical and moral questions the Times chooses to print. I'm amazed at some of the situations these people find themselves in. Should I have to take care of my elderly parents when they didn't properly plan for their retirement? That is one question I've seen several times. I've seen questions about who should receive what in an estate. The will says my brother should get the house, but I don't feel like that is fair, should I hire a lawyer to break the will. I've been getting five thousand dollars a month from a trust fund but haven't told my wife. Should I tell her. Can I get her excluded from receiving any of that if we get divorced? Deceit, secrets and outright lies seeking justification. That's the way I see that sort of thing. As long as I can get someone else to agree with me, it is alright. It aligns with another blog I composed some time back called, a more convenient faith. It's the removal of saying no.

 Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. That's a rule many seems to ignore these days. In the beginning the lawyers would simply state the law, as written and that was enough, Today the job of the lawyer is to find what it doesn't say. There's no law against that! Then the quest is to make it legal. Morality and ethics are always trumped by the law! If it's legal, it doesn't matter if it is ethical or moral. Thing is, as John Adams pointed out, our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. For the past 247 years there have been those actively engaged in changing that. The majority of them lawyers. 

 Does religion establish ethics? That's a debate that rages on and will continue to rage forever. It certainly appears to me that the absence of religious teachings and doctrines foster unethical and immoral behaviors. Do not confuse the practice of a religion with the beliefs of that religion, they are often at odds. That's the more convenient aspect of faith I wrote about in the past. Consider the fact that just recently the Pope, the leader of the Catholic church, has said it is fine to bless same sex marriages. Now he didn't say the church approves of that, that you could be married in the church by a Priest, but the church would give it its' blessing. A bit of a contradiction in my mind. Tacit approval. Is the church going to bless the abortionist? If not, why not? See the problem there. 

 I do not subscribe to the New York Times and so am restricted in what I can read and how much. I've never tried writing to them with an ethical question. I'm quite certain it wouldn't be published if I did. Whatever the case may be I am left scratching my head. Just what are these people thinking? We are in big trouble people heading down a slippery slope indeed. When morality and ethics is established by politicians we are doomed! ” Without God’s aid, Benjamin Franklin said the Founding Fathers would “succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel." He was talking about the continental congress while drafting the constitution. The United States Code (laws) are divided into 54 categories and the number of pages can't even be counted! Babel indeed! And it comes down to this, that is what it says but what does it mean? Just ask the times.