the final thought

  I'm done contemplating what that opening ceremony at the Olympics was supposed to represent or not represent. I have boiled it down to its' basic purpose. That purpose is to entertain the masses. It is apparent to me that lesson has not been learned, at least not by that French artistic director. Perhaps he has never watched the movie Gladiator with Russel Crowe. That pretty much sums up what entertains the masses. I'm not able to quote lines from many movies verbatim, I don't memorize them, but I think the Emperors sister told him "the crowd is fickle brother" and Marcus will be forgotten in a week. The games were held to placate and distract the crowd. In one scene in the movie, he even asks, "are you not entertained?" Win the crowd and win your freedom.

  There was little entertaining about those opening ceremonies for a basic reason, not many realized what any of that was about. The crowd wasn't a group of intellectuals. No one was holding discussions and forums examining the inner meaning of the symbolism. A few celebrities were included in that to draw the crowd in, that much he seems to have understood, but beyond that, it was flat and somewhat puzzling. What the heck am I watching? I do believe the vast majority of the population know that the Olympic games began in Greece thousands of years ago. Most people in the world today have heard of the Greek Gods, most generally as an amusement. Zeus and the gang. Very entertaining for a variety of reasons. The bad guys we love to hate. And they did engage in all the naughty things that entertain us, even to this very day. 

  There are those outraged by the symbolism as they perceived it to be. The Last Supper, the rider of a pale horse and all of that. That is what the crowd saw regardless of what the planner was attempting to show. For the most part, the crowd was not entertained. Of course, you always have those in the crowd that don't care what it is they are seeing, it is just a party. They aren't giving any thought to anything beyond having a good time. The crowd mentality where people are just swept up into whatever. And then you will have those that fancy themselves above all of that, the enlightened ones proclaiming the brilliance of the program. Millions of dollars were expended in creating this spectacle, it is pushing the current narrative, and artistic people were involved, it has to be great! But the reality is this, what was the highlight of the entire program? Celine Dion singing a beautiful song. People were entertained by that. It required no thought on the part of the listeners. 

  And so, for me the bottom line is that it failed as entertainment. Regardless of any intended or unintended messaging. In spite of any historical references or profound statements on society and the social order today. No matter how many bullet holes you put in the Statue of Liberty, it was an utter failure as far as entertaining the crowd. There will be those looking down from their white castles saying it was just misunderstood by the ignorant and uneducated masses. There will be those that gave it no thought at all and remained mystified. And beyond all that there are those that found all of it repulsive, offensive, and a slap in the face. I am reminded of a meme I see often on Facebook, "You Had One Job!"  

I didn't know

  A little more about the Olympics. Yesterday I noticed how many experts in Greek mythology are on Facebook. Really not that surprising as in the past there have been anthropologists, animal behavioral experts, art and music critics and philosophers. I soon learned how inadequate my education about the ancient Greeks was ruining my quality of life. I was upset by the imagery of the opening ceremonies for the games. I should be celebrating that ancient culture, fully appreciating the symbolism and grandeur of the presentation. Instead, being an uneducated person lacking that knowledge I was disgusted. So off to the internet to learn more about that, to improve myself, to become enlightened. 

  The very first Olympic games where apparently held 330 years before the birth of Christ. Wikipedia dates it earlier than that at 776 BC. At least a stadium was built around 330 BC whose primary purpose was the Olympic games. Those games continued happening every four years until 393 Anno Domini. The ancient Greeks were celebrating their plethora of Gods. In general, it was just a big old party filled with games and debauchery. The ancient Greeks had a rather loose system of morality. They were "woke" way back then. Public drunkenness, casual sex with multiple partners, same sex relationships, pedophilia and all of that was commonplace. That continued until the Roman Emperor Theodosius banned the games altogether. He was a Christian and was attempting to suppress paganism! Yes, the intent was to have people behave in a more Christian fashion. 

  So, no more Olympics for another 1500 years. Then in 1896 a Frenchman decides to revive the games. Those games have evolved over the years. The summer and winter Olympics were created. Sports were added and removed. The rules have changed over that time as well. The ancient Olympics were all about the Gods. In particular Zeus. He was king of the Gods. The modern-day Olympics are supposed to be secular in nature. Still there have been prayers offered during opening ceremonies in the past and many of the athletes give praise to God for their victories. I'm certain many pray to their God for strength, safety and success. I haven't read exactly what that French guy had in mind when reviving the Olympic games, but I don't think he was proposing a return to the ancient Greek celebration. 

  Now having read a brief portion of the history of the games I'm a bit more educated. That knowledge leads me to think, why would another Frenchman decide to celebrate the debauchery that was evident in those ancient games? The only reason I can think of is because he supports all of that as just perfectly fine, the normal thing. Then you have to have an entire committee agree with that notion. It wasn't an individual choice. The expectation was that all the world would know this history and immediately recognize the figures. Oh look, it's Dionysus. Yes, and a pale rider on a horse from Greek mythology. Interesting is the mysterious figure handing over the flag. Who was that? Did you notice the flag was hung upside down? What does that symbolize?

  Was it all a parody or just coincidence. The Greeks had twelve major Gods. There were twelve disciples. Dionysus is shown wearing a crown of sorts, beams of light or whatever, so is Jesus in that famous painting. The table looks the same, the setting the same but I guess that is all coincidence. It just confused me the uneducated person not well versed in Greek mythology or certain video games. I read where one character was supposedly based on that. It's all a big secret though. Only the elite will know and understand. The commoners, the spectators don't need to be concerned with any of that, you will be told what to believe. It was all just a recreation of an ancient Greek custom. You should have known that.   

  

Optics

  I'm not boycotting the Olympics. I'm just going to start with that. My not watching those athletes that have spent years training and dreaming to compete at that world event will not change anything. It will hurt no one except the athletes. I have and will continue to complain about that opening ceremony. It is my feeling it was very poorly thought out. In a world where we are always so concerned for the "OPTICS' how that was allowed to take place is baffling. I understand the Olympic committee has removed certain portions from the video of that ceremony due to international backlash. I believe that backlash is well justified. 

  I've read quite a lengthy explanation about what I was supposed to be watching. Yes, the spin doctors are in overdrive on this one. It sounds to me like the announcer at the coliseum in some movies I have watched. We are reaching back into hallowed antiquity in this recreation. A recreation that resembles the Last Supper to billions of Christians around the world. That was the optics there. But I'm being told that isn't what that was at all, no, it was a Bacchanalia. And we all know exactly what that is right? Well, we should. Don't you know your Greek mythology? That is all that was, a depiction of Greek mythology celebrating the god of wine and pleasure. That's why there were drag queens and a blue guy laying on the table. Just engaging in a bit of debauchery because well, that's what the Greeks did back in the day. You didn't see that? The implication with that explanation being, I'm just uneducated, not informed and I misunderstood the whole thing. 

  I'll be the first to admit I'm sorely lacking in my knowledge of Greek mythology. I learned most of that from watching movies like Jason and the Argonauts. I've seen Greek gods on casino games. I also learned most of my classical music from Bugs Bunny cartoons. So yes, I would say I'm pretty ignorant about Greek mythology. As it happens, I was born and raised in the United States of America. A predominately Christain nation I was raised in that religious belief. I'm far more knowledgeable about that story and familiar with those symbols and symbolism. I saw a depiction of the Last Supper. That was my "optics" at work and apparently that is also what millions of others saw as well. Was there really a reasonable expectation that a worldwide audience would see anything else? 

  I'll say I didn't associate that person on a horse with the rider on a pale horse in the book of revelations. I'm not that well versed in every book and chapter of the Bible, most I just have a passing knowledge of. After having that pointed out I can see where that might also be understood to be depicting just that. The symbolism is there. In ancient times there was another symbol that to the Hindu's meant prosperity and good luck, in Buddhism it represents Buddas footsteps, in Indian philosophy it represents the fourth state of conscientious. What symbol is that? The swastika! Could I use that as a symbol for opening ceremonies and expect everyone to know all of that? Well, if they don't, they must all be ignorant, uneducated fools! 

  In my opinion the whole thing is an international faux pas. France should be embarrassed and ashamed. I would never consider them to host the Olympic games again. Just who decided on all of that? That's what I want to know. Whatever committee did approve of that owes the world a sincere apology. Especially so today given all the flags, symbols and ribbons being flashed around today. The rainbow flag and all of that is protected by law, it's a hate crime to deface or disturb that. Certainly, that committee should have been aware! Where is the awareness for Christianity? There was none, not a thought to any of that. The expectation was everyone watching would be fully versed in Greek mythology and instantly recognize that a Bacchanalia was being depicted. Everyone would know that! Talk about out of touch with reality, out of touch with the people, talk about being inclusive! How about including the billions of Christians in the world and having a sense of awareness about that. 

  As to whether all of that was a deliberate thing or not, I can't say. I'm really not that much of a conspiracy theorist. I find it difficult to believe that no one noticed the resemblance to the Last Supper in that scene. I suppose it is possible if you are just told we are going to recreate what the Greeks were doing before their games. Still, I don't think it would have gone unnoticed. What I do feel like is that it was a colossal mistake. Perhaps they became so aware that they were blinded by their own brilliance! Yeah well, all I can say is I had a tee shirt that had this printed on it; if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull*hit. And that's what I think of their explanation.    

it is what it is

  Here's the thing with me, I keep fantasy separate from reality. I may not always like the reality, but I accept it for that. I wonder sometimes about others and their ability to do that. As I scroll down my Facebook page, I do see the meme's, the little articles or whatever. I read the comments. I'm always amazed and amused by those arguing about a movie or a television show of some kind. I scratch my head as I read comments, sometimes quite lengthy explaining something or questioning how that could be. I usually wind up saying, it's a show, a fantasy, make-believe anything is possible. 

  I have seen on television that they have entire conventions about that stuff. I laugh when I hear the name, it always ends in "con." I realize it is foolish to speculate or assume certain things but I'm assuming the "con" stands for convention. I'm laughing because there is nothing conventional about any of that in my way of thinking. People are being conned alright; they are fooling themselves. But I'm told it is a harmless pastime, a hobby this playing dress up. They call that cosplay. As for me I quit playing dress up when I was about five years old. Oh, I did play cowboy and army guy until I was about ten or so, I guess that is the same thing.

  To each their own I suppose and if that is what you want to do that's fine with me, you don't need my permission or endorsement. I do have a problem when you get fantasy mixed up with reality. That seems to be a growing issue in today's world. I'll start with a very basic one. Everything in this world is binary! Yes, there are only two. No matter how you feel, no matter what you do, no matter what, there are only two. Male and female, black and white, up and down, hot and cold. Of course, there are different degrees to each one but in the end, there are still only two. You are alive or you are dead. That's reality. Another reality is that guns, knives, bombs, automobiles or any other inanimate object you can name may injure people, but it takes a person to animate that object. It isn't the fault of the object; it is the fault of the individual! A third reality is that some people will have more than what you do whether it is money, fame, property, looks or intelligence. Life isn't fair! 

  Now as to fantasy it can be an entertaining diversion. A big fantasy is that everyone can be different while being the same. I hear that one a lot these days. There is an old adage that says birds of a feather flock together and that is the truth of the matter. Why is that? Because it is the natural thing, the way of nature and man is a part of that as well. It isn't racist, it is a natural thing. Whenever something is different, we react to that in one of two ways, remember everything is binary, we are either curious or afraid. Any further interactions we have will depend on the result of the first. To expect anything else is a fantasy. You can't create reality, it is what it is. The best we can do is accept it. Barring that, all we can do is make-believe. 

You'll never know

  Yesterday I was thinking about the digital dependence so many in the world today have developed. It is a worldwide, pervasive thing as strong as any drug, and it can be just as deadly. I'm not excluding myself in any of that, I'm just as online as most. My digital fingerprints are everywhere. Do I have a dependence? I admit it would be a difficult habit to abandon at this point. Still, like most people with such addiction I will deny that I am addicted. Perhaps if that admission where to provide me with some benefit I would have a different attitude. It's advantageous to be the victim occasionally. It has become almost an admirable quality in the last few years. Being a survivor! 

  I was also on the computer yesterday and browsing Facebook. That is at the heart of my digital dependence, as it has become a portion of my daily routine. I saw several articles about the assassination attempt of Donald Trump. One focused on the fact that the shooter had done a google search on the Kennedy assassination. His digital background was being checked and scrutinized. According to the article this search was known about previously. No explanation about why it was known, just that it was. I wonder if someone, some entity or artificial intelligence mechanism had picked up on that. I'm quite certain Facebook employs all of that as I frequently get warnings, messages and occasionally blocked altogether. I haven't been blocked lately although I have had posts removed. All of that is just an annoyance to me.

  There has been much discussion about privacy on the internet. How much is private? In my estimation, none of it is private. I have always scoffed at the notion that any portion of it was. Since the very beginning of the internet, and yes, I was there, there have been hackers, those reading, commenting and prying into whatever information you provide them. I've known since I was quite young, the only way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone. That includes your best friend and your spouse. I haven't posted a thing that I wanted to be private. My search history is certainly an open book to anyone that would care to examine it. The thing is, I don't have any secrets to keep. I have nothing to hide and so remain relatively unconcerned with all of that. I do pay some bills online, order some items and so have concern for that information. It has been compromised on at least one occasion. I expect if I had more, it would happen more often. Robbing a bank and breaking into a piggy bank yield a different result. 

  Do you have a right, a reasonable expectation of privacy on your digital devices? I agree that you should but emphasize that you don't. I believe it is a foolish thing to believe that regardless of any firewalls, vpn's or encryption. Locks are only there to keep honest people honest, they do little to stop the thieves. That's the reason Ft. Knox is guarded by the United States Mint Police. All of the advanced safety and security measures are employed but still it is guarded by people. You can't just go home at night believing, it's fine, the door is locked. 

  But what of the legality of searching your digital data, lifting your digital fingerprints from the scene of the crime? I'm no lawyer, no constitutional scholar, but aren't we guaranteed that by the fourth amendment. Thing is, that doesn't apply after the fact. The crime has already been committed and so the evidence can be gathered by court orders. Apparently, there is no consequence for destroying any digital record, Hillary famously did so with her basement server and cell phones. And what is happening with Hunter's laptop? It also appears perfectly fine to take anything anyone has said, posted, or transmitted in any way, on any social media platform and put it on the evening news. No privacy concerns there. Tells me there is no right to privacy on any social media platforms, private messages aren't so private after all. Certainly, don't need a court order for any of that. Whatever you posted ten years ago, or more, is fair game. 

  I do wonder by whom, and for what purpose my digital data is being gathered. I have no doubt that it is. Somewhere it is being stored. I have been told that whatever you put on the internet stays there forever. I admit I do harbor some doubts about that, it doesn't seem possible or particularly desirable.  That combined with my ability to "lose" my own stuff makes me question that. I was writing a book on a platform called "Fast Pencil" that is no longer. All those pages, notes and thoughts are now gone, disappeared into the ethernet somewhere. Were their servers wiped clean? I don't know, but if I see my words being published, I guess I'll have my answer then. Did they really disappear? 

  The big question in all of this is can law enforcement use that information for a preemptive strike? That is to say based on your search history? Much was made of the fact that the kid was reading about the Kennedy assassination. As terrible an event that it was, it is still a part of history. Should we be concerned about what events in history we read and research? Will that get your name on some list? A list that is now being checked against whatever other activities you are engaged in. Suppose I want to purchase a gun and my name is on that list, can I then be denied that purchase? What about other objects that could be used for nefarious reasons, large purchases of fertilizer or bleach or anything like that. Will AI cross reference all digital activity associated with that to your name, to your "REAL ID" that government mandated document. 

  As I said though, I have nothing to hide and so I'm not concerned. The only way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone. The second rule in keeping a secret is to never write it down. Don't do it! Even Nostradamus with his backward writing that was encoded in some fashion has been deciphered. There is little writing in the world that hasn't been figured out. Yes, a few inscriptions chiseled in stone or scratched on a parchment haven't been. My search history would certainly be varied as I'm a curious person by nature. I also enjoy history and searching for the real story. 

  I can't see any of that raising any red flags. I can see it be very damaging if I were to run for any political position. People hate Trump for his views and opinions, those people would certainly place me right next to him as an evil man. Yeah, I'm a conservative person prone to stating my actual opinion and not worried about what others think. I dropped out of the popularity contest in third grade. Want to know about me? Start reading, I've written over five thousand of these blogs with no plan to quit. I'm certain you can find whatever you want in there somewhere, good or bad. That's fine with me. Remember, if you want to keep a secret don't tell anyone or write it down. Do I have a secret? You will never know.  

digital dependence

 I saw an article online about some school systems now requiring the students to put their cell phones in signal blocking pouches. I have always thought that such tech would be easy enough to block as half the time I can't get a signal when trying to do so, lose that gps signal often too. The reasons the school was requiring that is obvious enough, it gets the kids to pay attention in class, you know less distraction. As I was browsing that article my tv was running in the background. I heard the reporter talking about another car crash caused by you got it, texting while driving. Yes, it was distracted driving. So, you know what I thought immediately? Maybe we should simply block those signals inside the car while it is running. I'm thinking that could be accomplished fairly easily.

  Later on, I made such a suggestion on a Facebook posting. I was aware that I would get some feedback on that, after all, we are talking about cell phones. There are many people today that feel like a cell phone is an essential thing, a must have to survive and an absolute right to own and use whenever and wherever. If the founding fathers had known about cell phones and the internet it would have been written in the constitution! Yes, it is that vital. I wasn't disappointed. If lives are lost because people are being distracted by their use, that's a shame, but no reason to block them. Well, because no matter what, people are going to use them anyway. We are already fining people and restricting their licenses if they are caught, that's good enough. 

  This isn't the first time all of that occurred to me. I had that thought the first time I saw a television screen in the dashboard of a SUV. Changing the radio stations was distracting enough but that has been elevated one hundred-fold. If you can do it on your home computer/entertainment center, you can do it in the car. Now we are even experimenting with self-driving vehicles, so you won't have to pay attention at all! Maybe they will have a reminder built in, a message like the GPS system that informs you, put your seat backs and tray tables in an upright position, your destination is on the right. All of that relies on those signals. What happens when the signal is lost? My thinking is it will quite a bit different than running out of gas or getting a flat tire. But that's progress right?

  I know that would never happen. The reasons we need to have internet/cell phone service twenty-four seven in every circumstance far outweigh any safety concerns. You never know when someone is going to call with vital information or need your opinion. What if you need to order something from Amazon. There could be a new tik-toc thing going viral. You just never know. And as far driving the car how am I expected to navigate anywhere without that GPS system informing me at every turn! Answer me that one, how! I'm not a pioneer you know, I couldn't possibly find my way to the Verizon store without that. Yes, GPS is a vital service. Trying to read road signs is just too distracting! Not sure what they were thinking about with those. 

  All of that sounds ridiculous doesn't it. It is and it is also the truth of the matter. Those are the reasons you will hear. The truth is the generations following us baby boomers have developed a digital dependence. Texas Instruments released the first pocket calculator when I was in high school, the concern then was students would use them to cheat and they were forbidden in class. It wasn't unfounded. Go to McDonalds and have the kiosk down, or the register, and see how quickly you can get your order taken. Could that fifteen dollar an hour employee add your order up and then figure out your change? Today we have people getting college degrees online. I'm certain they aren't using the internet to find the answers. Yeah, like a mail in ballot is 100% legit as well. 

  Any suggestion that internet/cell phone signals should be blocked or restricted in any fashion will never make it out of committee. There are many programs aiming to provide all of that for free to "underserved" communities. The reason being, it is vital! Without all of that those folks stand no chance of success in the world. Why they are living across the digital divide, and we must provide the bridge. The digital dependence is vital to control of the people. He who controls the media, controls the population. 

 Ever hear of a guy named Joseph Goebbels? The minister of "enlightenment and propaganda." He was instrumental in the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Without him none of that may ever have happened. But he controlled the media, what people saw, heard and were allowed to say. Who is in control of the digital media? That isn't as important as realizing that it can be shut off with the flick of a switch. Lights out. Could you survive without your digital devices? I have my doubts when I hear people saying they couldn't drive a car without that. No, I can't go ten minutes without having cell phone service. The anxiety is just too great!  

  

bitter

  It was a bitter disappointment. That's a phrase I have heard a few times over the years. I hadn't given its' meaning much thought, just took it at face value. But these last few years or so on Facebook has caused me to examine that further. There are people who are both disappointed and bitter. What I've come to realize is there are those that are simply bitter at life. Does that bitterness stem from disappointment? That is certainly an individual thing. In order to be disappointed, one has to have had expectations. I was raised to not expect a whole lot, that was just the attitude. I was told you get pretty much what you earn and what you deserve. Your estimation of either one may be different than everyone else, but that doesn't make it right. I still believe that to be true. 

  I wonder if that isn't a part of the problem we are having today. Perhaps expectations are just too high. It certainly seems to me a lot of folks have "great" expectations. The issue being those expectations are misplaced. Too much concern for wealth and social status. The expectation of being successful, loved and admired by others. But just as in that famous story, a lack of loyalty, conscience and true caring for others creates that bitterness. One has to be genuine in order to enjoy true happiness. That's why your wealth or social status isn't so important. We all know you can be very happy, with very little, in the way of material things. It all depends upon where we attach our expectations. Reality can be a bitter pill to swallow to coin a familiar adage. 

  We aren't the victims of circumstance; we are the victim of our response to that circumstance. The vast majority we have little to no control over. It simply is. We are born into that. If you are then taught that you were born with a liability that will carry over throughout your life. How many are taught just that? You can't do this or that because. The fascination with being the first is also prevalent today. Simply pick anything, anything at all and be the first. That is somehow supposed to make you special, grant you a place in history. Well, remember there had to be a first at failure too, doesn't make it a good thing though. We are supposed to learn from all of that, not repeat it. Don't become bitter because the majority remains the majority. When we agreed to majority rules that didn't include making the minority the majority, or indeed, equal to that majority. That's just the way the majority works! Are you disappointed by that? 

  A reasonable expectation. Is there really such a thing? There is, although it only exists on an individual level. What others expect is often quite different. People have a tendency to expect a great more from you than from themselves. I can do this or that, but you shouldn't. The application of a moral code is very fluid in those circumstances. That is where the notion of if you have more than I do, you should give the difference to me, make us equal. It's the only moral thing to do. It's the expected thing. A prime example of that is the giving of a gratuity. A gratuity is a gift but is now expected, if not imposed upon you. Plenty of people bitter about that when they don't get that gift. It's beyond disappointed, it is bitterness. 

  I don't know it just seems to me that a lot of people are simply bitter at life. It hasn't turned out the way they expected it to. There have been disappointments and failures. Searching for a place to lay the blame they become bitter. They believe they have done everything right, or at least to the very best of their abilities, but were somehow prevented from accomplishing their goals. They are disappointed. The world turned against them. The universe conspired. Thing is, they never set a goal in the first place. They simply had expectations. They listened to and believed all the promises. There is only one promise that is true and that is, nothing is promised. I'm not disappointed in knowing that; it doesn't make me bitter. We don't even keep promises made to ourselves, therefore there should be no expectation of others doing that either. Reality seldom meets expectations. What happens tomorrow is not up to us. It isn't even up to what someone else wants. It is beyond the control of man. Being bitter about yesterday isn't going to change that. 

harvesting

  It's been decided, Harris will receive the nomination from the DNC. The primary election is now null and void. Ya'll might just as well as stayed home. Your vote doesn't matter. The 25th amendment was used as a club. It didn't have to actually be used, the threat was enough, to get the job done. The ultimatum was clear, bow out or get thrown out. The democratic leadership, out of kindness I suppose gave old Joe an option. Bow out and save face, and possibly a few favors thrown in to boot, or just be removed in disgrace. Just like the song Pancho and Lefty, the federales only let him get away, out of kindness. Biden can retire to his home in Delaware and slowly fade from sight. The ugly business with Hunter will also disappear. You see that's the thing with dementia, no one can really predict the future, how long the inevitable will take. Yes, it is a sad ending regardless of your political views.

  Will Harris really be given the green light to choose her vice president? I can't see that happening. There are those pulling the strings that I'm certain have their own plans for that office. Harris served her purpose on the ticket, helping get the vote out for Joe. She did prove useful in that regard. As to her actual abilities to govern, to make the big decisions, that is in serious question. But just as with Joe, the president won't really be making those decisions just announcing them. Oh, she will be credited, that's a part of the deal, but she won't really have the final say. Her legacy will be, I was the first! And we all know how important that is to the democrats, they have to be the first. Biden certainly hired/appointed a number of "firsts" in his administration. I don't think I need to name them. 

  I have heard Harris speaking a bit already. All I heard her say is that far left rhetoric. The line about women having reproductive rights. We all know she just means killing babies on demand. What she is saying is engaging in sex without having to bear any responsibility for that choice. Just terminate! And of course, free stuff for everyone, especially those that are minorities of any kind. She claims to be three or four minorities alone! Harris is all aboard the democratic policy of appeasement. That's their leadership style, promise you the world! You are free to do exactly as you please without consequences as long as you continue to vote the way you are told. The party leadership will tell you what to think! They are already telling you who your candidate for president is going to be, just get with the program.

  Tonight, Joe is supposed to speak to us from the oval office. He is going to explain this "choice." I expect he will just talk about his service to the nation since 1973. Probably won't explain how he managed to amass a wealth of 9 million dollars while doing that though. Or why he voted twice to tax social security benefits. That was just about the only thing he did as a Senator. He ran for president back in 87 but had to drop out due to plagiarism. In the 2007-8 campaign for president he had to drop out due to racially charged gaffes and his inability to even reach double digits in the polls. Obama won that contest if you remember that and choose Biden to be his second. Biden resigned from the Senate to become the vp. A little gift for his cooperation perhaps? Joe has continued to cooperate until he wouldn't. Then he was forced out. Tonight, we will see a bitter, angry old man, stabbed in the back by his own party. Well, you reap what you sow. The harvest is now. 

no complaints

  After posting a picture of myself for my birthday I was pleased to receive a number of comments. All of them were positive, I have some nice friends. I do appreciate the sentiments. One person did remark that she felt I still looked like the young man with the black framed glasses. I was immediately taken back to my high school days. I did wear glasses like that, I jokingly called them the Clark Kents! Never being a person that was much concerned with fad and fashion they suited me just fine. After joining the Navy I was issued new glasses! They were also the Clark Kent model. I believe there were two choices given to me at that time. You were required to wear the government issue ones while in uniform. I'm not certain that is still in effect today.

  My wife asked about that, and I was explaining it to her. The story is this. My sister and I both needed glasses when we were young. I want to say I was in the third grade or close to it. That means my sister would have been in fifth grade. How it came to be noticed I have no idea; I suppose we were given an eye exam at some point. Growing up in my family we didn't have routine examinations for anything. You went to a doctor when you were seriously injured or seriously sick. You went to the eye doctor when you couldn't see. That was the only time those services were required. So, it was determined we needed glasses. That was quite an expense. I was totally unaware of any of this until many years later. I was talking with my sister, and she informed me that the Lyons' club had actually provided those glasses to us. 

  That knowledge made me realize a few things I hadn't given any thought to before. First off, we were a poor family. That had never occurred to me growing up. I had a home, clothes to wear, food to eat and toys to play with. I had everything you needed. I knew other kids had more stuff and more money to spend but that didn't mean I was poor. I was totally unaware of my parents' financial situation, and I believe that is as it should be. That was the attitude of the times. And yes, it was a different time. I wore those black framed glasses because that is what was provided to me. In those times you didn't get a choice when being offered charity. There was no concern for your feelings or that you should get the same as those paying for the item. Quite a stark contrast from today. Beggers can't be choosers you know. 

  Today, remembering my childhood, those days at home with the family I have a different perspective. I appreciate things even more than I did. All the times I thought my parents were just being cheap or mean weren't that at all. It was most likely that they just couldn't afford it, whatever it was at the moment. But they had a way of making things seems like fun. I remember well sitting at the kitchen table and picking out school clothes from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue. There were no department stores where I lived, the closet one was 25 miles away, and here we had a huge selection right in the kitchen. I didn't realize we were buying clothes on time. Christmas time that catalogue was also marked up in the hopes that "santa" would see it. Everyone hid from the insurance man when he came to collect his monthly payment, didn't they? The fact that we never, as a family, went to a restaurant to eat, never seemed odd to me. Eating out was for people on dates, people on vacations or old people. Families only did that in the movies.

  The only repairman that ever came to our house was the television guy. And that only happened after dad had checked every tube. They had a test stand at the store that sold those tubes. Everything else dad built or repaired. As a result, I did learn a little about every trade there was. I was always told, if you want something done right, do it yourself. Great advice when you can't afford to hire someone else to do it for you. To this day I still balk at that. Hate having to pay others to fix something. Well, most times these days I just buy another one, it is cheaper that way. 

  Yeah, I guess we were poor people. I didn't know that. It does explain a number of things. But I was raised to not complain about things. If you wanted something you had to work for it. You learned to take care of the things you had. There was no reason you couldn't go anywhere you liked, or associate with anyone you wanted to. I was told I was just as good as anyone else! Nothing exclusive about living in Three Mile harbor! Looking back, I think we were a lot like the Waltons. Oh, we didn't have all that wisdom, all that love and caring displayed on that show, but we were a family. Dad was in charge; mom took care of the house and kids, and we were all expected to do our part. It was a great childhood, even if we did get our glasses from the Lyon's club.  

                                                                          

repeating

  The big announcement yesterday came as no surprise to me. The only uncertainty I had was whether he would resign or simply not run for reelection. I suspect some deal was made between himself and the powers behind the scene. There are a good number of legal issues concerning the Biden family that could be handled with a little bit of cooperation. A little Quid Pro Quo. Not surprising, business in Washington as usual. But yesterday's announcement did check another box. I have been thinking about the Democratic National Convention from 1968. It's the famous one. This one is shaping up to be another doozy!

  I was only fifteen in 1968 but do remember seeing a portion of that fiasco on the evening news. A great deal of what was said on the convention floor was censored, unfit for the general public ears. It was quite a shock to many people I remember that. Back then it wasn't considered nice to discuss politics in polite company but that was an exception. It was simply outrageous. Yes, those words we hear today in almost every rap song where being used on the convention floor! 

  That convention took place in Chicago. Fifty-six years later and the convention is once again in Chicago. Lyndon B Johnson was president back then but announced he wouldn't seek reelection. The reason for that being in polling he was a distant third among the primaries for his party. Rather than risk embarrassment by losing the election, and possibly the democrats losing the presidency, he simply did just as Biden has done. By doing so the convention now became about selecting a new nominee. Same thing today regardless of any urging that it must be Harris. As Yogi Berra would say, it ain't over till it's over. And she ain't the nominee until that convention is over and the decision made. It should be quite the fight. There are many powerful figures that see an opportunity here, a crack in the wall, a little light at the end of the tunnel.

  The big issues of the day in 1968 where the war in Vietnam, very unpopular, voting rights, at that time you had to be 21 to vote. The result was the young people and minorities were becoming very active in politics. That was something new back then, very unusual and disturbing to the "establishment." The country was going through a period of civil unrest and riots. Does any of that sound familiar? There were two assassinations. Martin Luther King and JFK. Dr. King for his urging for peaceful protests and his marches. Why was JFK killed? We may never know the real reason, was it a conspiracy? Where their agents of the government involved? Does that sound familiar. And there were a group loosely defined as the Yippies. They were quite the radical bunch. They had made threats and promises to disrupt the convention. They promised to riot, to protest, to create chaos in the streets. The then mayor of Chicago Daly took all that very seriously. He filled the streets with every police office he had and added 600 national guardsmen to that mix.

  All of that was done in the name of security. As the convention began the Yippies kept their promises and began creating general chaos outside the convention. The police cracked down hard. The billy clubs were flying, people being clubbed and arrested. All of that was being shown on big television monitors inside the convention hall. That created arguments among the delegates. It all soon broke down into what proved to me a brawl and a national embarrassment for the democratic party. After all the smoke cleared, all was said and done, Nixon won the presidency. 

  I am just struck by how similar the situation is to 1968. Many of the same issues are being faced today. On the top of the list is border security. Although that wasn't a big talking point in 1968 it is creating a divide. The voting issue today is what? It isn't about the age you can vote but who can vote in general. Attempts to secure the vote being called racially motivated. Yes, the minority issue once again. It was being said minorities were being prevented from voting back in '68. The war was very unpopular as well. I'd say the discussion on the war in Ukraine and our support for that and in other arenas qualify today. The people are still shouting for peace! It looks to me like all the ingredients are there for another chaotic democratic convention. 

  Some democrats are only interested in nominating Harris. They see that as a milestone in the political arena. The first black, although I've heard claims that she is also Indian and a few other ethnicities, female president. What a win for the minorities! And that is the only redeeming qualities she really has. But that doesn't matter to that bunch, just having the first is. There are others however that see a chance to grab that brass ring for themselves. Many debts could be satisfied by simply nominating the correct man, or woman. It's a chance to be out with the old, and in with the new! A chance to unseat the status quo. 

  A fresh look for the democrats. All they need to do is defeat Trump. Joe wasn't going to do that, it became obvious. Can Harris? Well maybe if you can get all the minorities to vote for her exclusively. That is the gamble with that nomination. Of course, that means all minorities not just blacks. Black people only comprise 14% of the population. Can they count on the Asian, and Hispanics to cooperate? It's a risk isn't it. Still if enough is promised there is a chance. Open borders, welfare for all, free medical for all, housing, education and the right to vote in our elections should do the trick! No need for a path to citizenship, just go to the head of the line. It's the only compassionate thing to do. Don't worry, we will print more money. 

 All we can do is wait and see what happens next. History does have a way of repeating itself. The reason for that is simple enough to understand. Human nature doesn't change all that much. The same things making you upset today will upset others in the future. The democrats were upset about a great deal of this stuff back in 1865 after they lost their war. They are still upset trying to figure out a way to use those minorities to their advantage. If you can't get them to work on the plantation at least you should be able to get them to vote for you. The goal is the same, the retention of power. How many democrats threaten to leave this country, "secede" every time they don't get their way. It's a common theme, always has been. 

conspirators

  When I was maybe eight years old or so I was allowed to go to the corner store. I was often accompanied by my sister. She was two years older than me and was charged with watching me. Mom may have thought that my sister was doing just that but in reality, we were more like co-conspirators. My sister Millie did not have a very assertive personality, that wasn't her strong point, her strong point was being empathic, that and she was loyal to a fault. We had many adventures together until we reached our mid-teens when hanging out together wasn't cool anymore. We thought we were growing up, but little did we know how much we would come to miss hanging out with one another later in life. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. There's a reason for that and it's usually because it has been fertilized. We all know what makes a great fertilizer! 

  This morning, I was thinking about the great coca-cola heist my sister and I perpetrated. We had been sent to that corner store to get a loaf of bread or whatever, could have been cigarettes or beer for Dad as well, I don't remember the original mission. Whatever it was we took our usual route to get there. We lived on a dirt road and so took that down to the chip and tar road that was the main throughfare. Crossing that we took a footpath through a small, wooded area. This little plot of land was a game sanctuary. We were told it had been donated to the town for that purpose and no one could ever build or develop that land. It remains there to this day although the last time I saw it was surrounded by a fence. No fence there in the 1960's! 

 Taking that short cut through the woods brought us out on the road the store was on. We had to pass the house of our aunt to get there, and we often stopped to see if she needed anything from the store. The fact that she almost always gave us some money for candy had nothing to do with those visits. It was part of the routine. Going past her house the store was the next stop. Mary owned this store and was a family friend. She sometimes shared stories about my father with us. As kids we got a big kick out of that. We learned some things about the secret lives of parents. We were very comfortable around that store. We knew where Joe, that was Mary's husband was likely to be, and where Mary herself was. With that knowledge we put our plan into action.

  We arrived at the store and the coca-cola truck was parked right out front. The side door was open, and we could see those racks filled with six packs of coca-cola. There they were, just staring back at us. The delivery man was inside talking to Mary. He wouldn't be returning soon, Mary liked to talk to everyone. It was our chance. With my sister as my lookout, I snatched a six pack off that truck and headed home. Once I was safely away, out of sight, my sister caught up. She had gone in the store and purchased whatever it was we had been sent to get. As we reached that little path through the woods we talked. We couldn't take this soda home, mom knew we didn't have any money for that, and our aunt wouldn't have given us that much money! We did have an entire six pack! We decided the only thing to do was to drink it.

  So, we sat in those woods and using my belt buckle opened those cokes. My older brother had taught me that trick and I was feeling pretty clever and like a bit of bad ass. The soda was hot, something we hadn't considered before the heist. We did drink it though, one after the other. We had to hurry because we didn't want to be gone too long and raise suspicion. Mom might call her sister and find out we weren't there. I don't recall if we actually managed to drink them all, but I do remember not feeling so good. My sister wasn't feeling all that great either. When we got home, we were questioned. We had been gone longer than expected. We had no choice but to lie and say we stopped at Aunt Bets' house. Now that sick feeling was even worse. We told mom we were going out to play and went to our tree fort. There we sat feelings a bit sick to our stomachs. 

 No one ever knew about that little escapade. We kept our secret. It wasn't the only heist we perpetrated together. There is the 5&10 cent store as well. But that is another story. Yes, we were quite the desperados, a regular crime syndicate. No one ever knew. We retired from the crime business long about 1965 or so. Occasionally over the years when I had some private time with my sister, we would discuss those days. We had a secret to share. Two heists and we were never discovered. No one would have believed that about my sister anyway. Now, I didn't enjoy that immunity, I was the one really taking the risk. Fortunately, we were never questioned, never came under suspicion.  

knowing better

  Woke up this morning and realized I have completed 10% of my seventh decade here on earth. Yes, I have reached seventy-one years of age. I received a birthday card in the mail yesterday, a custom or tradition whatever you want to call it that is becoming a thing of the past. It's my thinking greeting cards will go the way of the postcard. They are still around but getting mailed a lot less frequently. I'm old enough to remember mailing a postcard from the different places I stopped while driving on the freeway! That was a thing at one time, along with a folding road map. Yeah, that was a few decades ago. All of that is being replaced by the use of social media and google maps. Today everything happens at a much faster pace and convenience is king. But as I was always told, it's the thought that counts. I do get far more Happy Birthdays on my timeline than I ever got in my mailbox! I have to say it was a little better when I had AOL and that voice would say, You've Got Mail! The good old days.

  The card I received in the mail came from a friend I've known for well over fifty years. He doesn't have a computer and remains detached from all this social media stuff. He is the only person I know that is still resisting this "progress." Well, you can't miss what you never had. He doesn't even have an e-mail address! I expect many are surprised by that. How many times are you asked for your e-mail address? It has become an expected thing, like having a cell phone. That phone hanging on the kitchen wall is the stuff of nostalgia these days. I remember calling my friend, had to dial the phone, to tell him I was on the way. He would then time me, to see how long it took to run to his house. I lived just about three miles away and would run there without giving it a thought. No jogging shoes, no outfit to wear, no hydration bag on my back, just run there. We would then spend the day playing baseball and I'd run back home before dark. 

  Just the other day as I was browsing, I saw where the historical society was advertising a new display. It was a throwback to 1968! I was in sixth grade in 1968. They included a picture of a room containing some furniture and decor from 1968. None of that looked old or historic to me. Looked like someone recovered my mother's couch! Well, I guess after six decades that is to be expected. I might still have some socks from 1968. I joined the Navy in 1971 and here I am, 71. That seems a bit strange, a twilight zone episode. Referencing that show probably dates me as well. I remember who I was "in" 71 and now I'm "at" 71! I'm happy to report I'm pretty much the same guy, not much has changed. I've got some growing up to do. I'm thinking I'm almost ready, having gained some experience.

  I am beginning to think that life is like a party, just as soon as it is getting good, it's time to leave. You start out a wallflower, then come into your own and finally you're just tired you don't really want to go but you don't have a choice.  Fortunately, I feel like the party is just starting to roll. I'm one of the big kids now. Nobody telling me what to do or when I have to be home. Well, except for my wife, discretion is the better part of valor. That's experience paying off. My mom was right, I know better. 

  I have learned one thing. The past is always better. It's another one of those twilight zone things. When I look back and remember the past things weren't all that bad. I do remember how I thought at the time and how I thought things were so terrible. Turns out, they weren't, I just didn't know any better at that moment. People tried to tell me; it isn't that bad. Often, I didn't listen but as it turns out, they were right. It really wasn't that bad. So now I know better. I'm kinda looking forward to my eightieth decade, imagine how much I'll know by then. I will know better that much is certain. I'm growing up. I've learned you have to pace yourself, just like the president said! Biden is 81 and apparently, he has learned that and passed the advice along. So, his presidency hasn't been a total waste, I guess. Still, I have learned that you have to get old before you get to enjoy the "good old days" Talk about irony. 

on the dodge

  One of the things that I don't understand is those that profess they have zero belief in God. What's confusing is the majority of those people are the same ones always talking about inclusiveness and empowering others. So why do they insist on telling everyone how foolish they are to believe in God. I struggle to understand why that is. These are the same people telling me that your "gender" is now to be determined by your feelings. The same people insisting I should accept that unconditionally, almost as a religion of its' own. The thing is both actions are based solely on belief. They are emotional things, not necessarily factual things. Do feelings make it fact? I'd suggest that they do, but only to the one having that feeling. It's a fact if you believe it to be fact.

  For me this professed non-belief is an attempt to escape consequence. Another dodge of responsibility. What is at the heart of most religious belief? The promise of reward. That is what is promised to the faithful. Just how faithful you have to be is always in a state of constant flux. Those dismissing it altogether convincing themselves that there will be no reward or punishment for whatever actions they perform in this life. It's a one and done type of thinking. Doesn't provide much incentive or hope as far as I can tell. It is the proverbial a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush mentality. I do question how that will feel when faced with their own mortality. Rather short-sighted in my opinion. 

  What responsibility is being dodged? For that we need to look at what the religious belief teaches us. At its core is the golden rule. Doing unto others. Remove that, and you are now free to do as you please, to push the limits of what society will tolerate. The laws made by man generally reflect the morality of those being governed. At least that is the premise of our Republic, a rule by the people. Yes, the majority, in our case 75% is the usual standard for passing such legislation. The more people we have dodging that responsibility, the more those laws stray from the rule. 

  Where the wheels start to get wobbly is when others, outside of that society, begin insisting they have the rights of that society. It begins when others outside of that religious belief begin telling the followers of that belief how to practice it! That is the reason for so many variations, so many religions, so many denominations. Each one being created by a society that chose not to follow the original. Indeed, there are those arguing what is the original. Remember in Christianity when we got the "new" testament. The Koran contains portions of the Old Testament. The torah is made up of what? The first five books of the Bible. Each example of that created those wobbly wheels, each one creating a different belief. Some would call it a new belief. 

  And that is what I think causes this non-belief. It comes from those that just can't decide. From people that remain in a state of constant change, whatever change benefits them. It's just a method to justify their choices. It requires no adherence to any code, any moral or ethical character whatsoever. They are bound solely by the laws created by men. It's a dog-eat-dog world. Maybe I'm just wrong or foolish. Still, I believe I can always get another chance, another shot at it. There has to be more than this. We all ask the same question, why. I don't believe any of us will ever know why. I like to think I may learn one day, however. Hope is an important emotion. So is belief. There is no stopping someone that truly believes. Belief is the most powerful force of all. Ironically it doesn't really matter what you believe that statement stays true. All of us will find out one day, maybe for a second or maybe for another lifetime. Maybe it is belief itself that determines that outcome. Can you dodge eternity? I don't think so. 

    

Machinations

  Was a busy morning and I just now have time to jot down a few thoughts. Watching the news, I see that Biden has been diagnosed with covid. He did appear to be in a weakened state, a bit feeble and hesitant. But to be honest about it not that much different than last week. But they reported he has received his first dose of Paxlovid, well because the vaccine and multiple boosters just didn't do the trick. As I watched him leaving air force one and interacting with a few people I couldn't help but notice he wasn't wearing a mask. Isn't the protocol to mask up! Well, maybe that only applies to the common folks. He was heading into isolation at his home in Delaware. 

  Now being the big conspiracy person that I am I immediately became suspicious of this story. I'm aware that he met with Schumer and few others in a closed door session. They were telling him what was best for the party. They were trying, as diplomatically as possible, to tell him to step down. I didn't need to be in that meeting to figure that out. So now we need a way to have Joe exit as a conquering hero, a shining example of the "people" before self. Given his age Covid seems a likely reason. He can step down gracefully while barely clinging onto life. He'll survive long enough to pass the torch. I'm saying we will hear that in about a week or so. In that way the DNC will be free to nominate whomever they want. It's also one way to get rid of Kamala as she has proven to be more of a liability than an asset. Well, that often happens with diversity hires. 

  As far as what happened with the secret service blunder we are left with a lot of questions. I'm certain the order to that secret service sniper was not to fire unless the kid fired first. We have to remember this is America and the criminals always get the benefit of the doubt, always! Shoot that kid without his weapon being discharged first and the news would have reported he was shot down in cold blood! I understand that completely and I have no doubt that was the order. Whether the secret service will ever admit to that is another topic altogether. They have already attempted to place the blame on the local police department saying it was their responsibility to have someone on that roof. I'm waiting for the explanation as to why the secret service even allowed Trump to take the stage knowing that roof was unprotected. There is no doubt they were aware of that fact. Lots of questions here. 

 Lots happening these days and it is hard to keep up. JD Vance as vp, who would have guessed that. I hadn't heard of him beyond he said he was a never Trumper at one point. I can only guess something made him change his mind. That isn't uncommon with politicians, in fact it is rather there stock in trade. Sometimes they even change political parties just like that. Well JD is a young man and certainly has the stamina necessary. Remember Vice President is only one step away from the oval office. The president is free to resign. In accordance with the 25th amendment JD Vance becomes president and gets to pick his vice president. Could there have been a promise made? Something to consider. Trump, now wounded but far from taken out has all but secured the election, another four years, or maybe the plan is for a bit less? Conspiracy, plot or machinations?   

 

Facts and feelings

  I am not responsible for the circumstances of my birth. I had nothing to do with that. I am simply the product. My race wasn't my choice. My social position in society wasn't my choice. Fact is, I didn't have much of a choice about anything until I was well into my teens. By that time, I had been indoctrinated into whatever culture I belonged to. That is the same for each and every one of us. But as we grow and mature, we can change the doctrines that we were taught, alter our view. And that is the portion I am responsible for. Often it is an uncomfortable time, teenage angst and all of that being what it is. And then there is the societal pressures to fit in. We are pressured to adopt the popular view. 

 I felt a bit of that pressure yesterday during an online discussion. I came to realize that I am expected to be on the apology tour for every injustice suffered by African Americans. It was expected of me that I accept the blame for all of that. I was informed of my white privilege, how I couldn't understand anything about black culture and how I should be paying reparations. My position is, I'm not responsible for any of that. I have done nothing to anyone. As far as I know my ancestors were not involved in any of that either. I do have English ancestors, so it is a possibility that they were somehow involved but before 1776, before we were America. 

 What was my transgression? I asked a simple question. There was a controversary surrounding the teaching of an AP African-American studies class being offered in Harford County schools. As with most things on social media the headlines skewed the facts a bit and in general were misleading. I was interested to know what the actual curriculum was. I said, isn't it just history? And that ignited a firestorm of comments. I was immediately attacked as a racist for even suggesting that it was simply a history class. No, this class was to teach black students, and white ones too, about every injustice, every wrongdoing, every heartbreak and misery that African Americans have had to endure for the last four hundred years in America! Eventually I did manage to get a copy of the actual course description. Yes, it does appear as that is the focus of the course. Didn't change my mind though, all that is indeed history and I have no problem with anyone being taught that. 

 I do think a great deal of that will depend upon who is teaching the course and what the professors' personal feelings may be. But that could be said about every course of instruction and so doesn't preclude the teaching of this one. The view of Stonewall Jackson in the southern states and the one taught up north are certainly different. Lots of examples of that. What is the objective of the course? That is what was being challenged, called into question. I understood that but I can't know that answer as it is dependent upon the instructor. What are the "correct" answers on the test. Answers that I suspect could be debated by scholars at great length. 

 If we are teaching history, teach all of it. My only concern being are we teaching history or ideology? I believe that is what was being questioned by those opposing the course. For me it is not unlike other ideologies being pushed in our society today. Many of those falling under the guise of inclusiveness. If you oppose them, you are not being inclusive. History is the recitation of facts. This is what happened. Why it happened is another course of study altogether. Facts and feelings. Different things entirely. Am I responsible for history? Only for my own is my feeling, only for my own.   

   

  

20th century thinking

  I realize I'm out of the loop on many things. One of those would be kids in grade school or high school. I was listening to the news about the problem of having cell phones in the classroom. Apparently, that happens even in elementary school classes. There is some debate, some discussion about banning that. I suppose I'm just old and outdated but it would seem to me the discussion should be about allowing them. As I remember things we were told what we could and could not do or bring to class. If that was a problem, it was discussed later on. When I was a senior in high school Texas Instruments made the pocket calculator available to everyone. We were immediately told no calculators in the classroom! Of course, we were still using the Dewey decimal system in place of goggle. But my point is things were banned first, allowed later. Things like the girls wearing slacks or the guys having heel taps on your shoes. Tee shirts were not outerwear at that time, at least not in the classroom. 

 Another story about school caught my attention. The Baltimore city school system has hired a new superintendent. This lady has extensive experience and is credited with turning at least one system around. The Baltimore school system sure could use some help. She was talking about how studies have shown that the third grade is the most important grade for reading comprehension. She is proposing that the students must pass the proficiency examination for that skill before being advanced to the fourth grade. I said to myself, wait, what? You currently don't have to pass the test to advance to the next grade. That seems to be the case. They even had someone arguing that they shouldn't have to pass that exam to advance because it was discriminatory. I'm not sure just who was being discriminated against by that requirement, but some students supposedly are. 

 Like I said I'm not in the loop on a great deal of this. I realize my thoughts and ideas are so twentieth century. I started feeling like things were a bit skewed when I kept seeing where students were graduating with a 4.3 or higher gpa, when I know that 4.0 is a perfect score. I also became somewhat skeptical when I saw my own grandson and granddaughter taking college level classes at the same time they were taking their regular classes. Silly me, I always thought you had to complete one to build upon it. Turns out I can do my college classes at the same time as my high school classes. Now I'm not saying it isn't possible, obviously it is being done, but it leaves me questioning the quality of that education. There is always the question of maturity to consider. And that is something I believe is being overlooked a great deal. They are still just kids. I know, twentieth century thinking.

 I'm so old I believe that getting an education means you have to actually learn the subject. That is the objective, not the degree. Somewhere along the line however that has been set aside. All I hear today is, get the degree. You can get it at a real school or a virtual school. You can simply purchase one on the internet if you want too! Pick the school, the degree you want and with a few clicks, you are good to go. And yes, it happens. And that takes me back to the discussion I heard on the television. Should those children have to be able to read at a third-grade level in order to pass the third grade? It's quite the controversary. 

  I'm also hearing a great deal about our colleges and universities indoctrinating the students in political ideologies. I never attended a college or university. For that reason, I really can't say what they are teaching or talking about. The perception I have is that those attending those institutions tend to lean toward the liberal side of things. I'm not surprised by that. They are young people after all, full of ideas, dreams, hopes, and over eighteen, they know it all. Whatever is new and different must be better than what mom and dad are saying. All I can say is with all the teachers and instructors I had over the years I never knew their political positions. As a general rule I didn't know the political leanings of my co-workers either. It wasn't something discussed in the workplace. If I found out about that it was usually over a beer at the corner bar. Are the colleges and universities really indoctrinating those students? I don't know. 

  Well, like I said I'm so old that I believe you go to school to actually learn about the subject. If you are interested in math, you learn about math. Yes, it is a good thing to have a rounded education, be informed and aware of the world around you. Still, the "degree" you are seeking should be what sparked your interest in obtaining that education. This notion of "getting a degree" and that will ensure success and a great income is a fallacy. You are being sold the proverbial bill of goods. How does that work? They are just kids, that's how. Selling the dream. Our institutions of higher learning devote far more time and effort in attracting "customers" than they do scholars. You really don't have to pass the test, just pay the bill. 

investiagting

  We have now shifted to the investigation. The FBI is attempting to find the motive. Well, I think we all know exactly what the motive was, hatred. As to why a twenty-year-old young man would take such action we will never know. What caused such hatred to be aroused in that man? That is something we can all debate, ponder about and place blame about. In the end it will be determined that he had mental issues stemming from his childhood. He was a loner, other kids made fun of him, and he should have been getting help. All the classic signs will be discovered. You know it, I know it and so does everyone else. You really can't explain what motivates someone to murder! 

  The investigation will also center on how this happened. All the questions will be asked. How did he get on that roof unnoticed by security? Why wasn't that rooftop being covered by the security teams? There are those already convinced it was some sort of conspiracy. It was a plan by the FBI, CIA or Secret Service. It was funded by Biden, Clinton and Obama. Maybe it was George Soros or some other billionaire. All that will be investigated. Nothing will be found because none of that happened. The simple truth is this man managed to sneak up there and get off a few rounds before being eliminated. And that in itself will be questioned. Why was he killed? Why wasn't he captured, taken into custody. That's part of the conspiracy right. Leave no witness alive. 

  Eventually we will start hearing about the gun used. It was an AR style weapon. What does that mean. An AR style weapon is a lightweight semi-automatic rifle. It isn't a sniper rifle. But the cries will go up again to ban those style weapons. Why those? Because the media has made them the scary guns, the ones most dangerous. They did the same to Donald Trump, made him the most dangerous man in America. And that is the power of the media. But all the investigating will discover nothing we don't already know, but fail to admit, it is the person not the weapon. All we can really do is try to protect ourselves from those that would harm us. That's what the second amendment is all about by the way. This notion that we can just ban the gun and the problem goes away is ridiculous. 

  Look the motive was hatred. That's it, plain and simple. What caused that person to hate Trump so much that he wished to kill him will never be known. Why do you hate whatever it is you hate? We all hate something and have a reason for doing so. The vast majority of us will never act upon that hatred in a direct sense. I hate lima beans but am not destroying your garden because you are growing them. But why do I hate lima beans? I don't like the taste of them. How did he get on that roof? He simply walked up there, through whatever security there was in place. The easiest way to do that is to act like you belong there, just casually walk through not drawing any attention to yourself. Was that woman riding a horse the distraction? Better investigate that. 

  There is no explaining madness. It is really no different from having complete faith in God. You can't explain that either. Both are human emotions, and both will continue being human emotions. The pundits will call it domestic terrorism or a variety of other terms. What it was, was an act of madness. That's all it was. All the experts can analyze his mental state all they want. All the experts can write their thoughts on the influence of media and even the video games the children play today. You don't have to have a PhD to figure all of that influences people. Guess what, we are all influenced by those around us and by our own private thoughts. Peer pressure we sometimes call that. Being cool. I'm hip and all that jive. I know it isn't the answer people want but the truth is, he was a nut. I don't care why he did what he did, he has been eliminated. It's just about all we can do. That and watch for the next one. Not all that much to investigate.      

my thought

  These blogs have turned into somewhat of a commentary on current events. Sporadic at best but some commentary, nonetheless. It is something I have often wondered about, what the thoughts of my ancestors may have been on historic moments, at the time they happened. Our opinions and remembrances will change somewhat over time. It's like playing a game of post office. We will learn new information, hear varying opinions and eventually make our final statement. This morning, I am naturally thinking about the assassination attempt of Donald Trump. My very first thought about that was, I'm not surprised.

  Despite all our advances in science, technology and the raising of "awareness" in society people really haven't changed all that much. In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the first president to be shot at! The pistols, both of them, malfunctioned. Jackson attacked the man with his cane until police took the man into custody. The man was found mentally insane and spent the remainder of his life in an institution. Jackson was convinced that the opposing political party at that time, the Whigs, were behind the attempt. That was never proven. Lincoln was the next president to be assassinated. We all know that story and who was responsible. Lincoln was followed by Garfield in 1881, McKinley in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Kennedy in 1963 and Reagen in 1981. The time between attempts has grown longer. Perhaps that is the result of increased security and awareness. 

  I'm hearing all the pundits on the news saying, this is the world we live in. The truth is we have always lived in this world. It isn't just the United States and our history, this has been taking place around the world since the very beginning. Kings, Emperors, Chiefs, Presidents, Cesear or any other name you wish to apply to the "leader" of a nation have always been subject to being eliminated. Yesterday a twenty-year-old man tried to kill Donald Trump. The FBI says they are searching for a motive. Seems clear and obvious to me. He didn't want Trump to become president. The only motive to be determined is what would cause someone to do that, not why they did it. And that is something we will never really know. All we will ever have is supposition, guesses and could be.

  So, my comment on this happening is, I'm not surprised. As far as the social aspect of this, the why of it, I can only offer my opinion. I believe social media played a role in "motivating" that young man to act in that way. Some call that being empowered these days. Yes, we hear that term tossed about a great deal these days and it is supposed to be a good thing, a positive thing. Being empowered however is just another way of saying you have permission. Someone else has given you permission to act in the way you chose. This person chooses to attempt to kill Trump. Social media and perhaps to a lesser degree the mainstream media empowered him. If you listened closely to what was being said about Trump with those venues, you can begin to understand. 

  He has been described as every vile and unsavory character you can imagine. It has been said that if he were reelected it's the end of democracy in America. He will begin mass deportations, imprisonments, refuse health care for women, withhold all social services from people, the babies will all starve to death, and in general become a tyrant! All is lost! That is the campaign against him. Is it any wonder that such fear and hate could be aroused in the people? And what needs to be understood is that political party doesn't matter in this at all. It could just as easily have been Biden. That is why I say I'm not surprised. 

  It will do absolutely no good to attempt to place blame on anyone other than the shooter. It may make you feel better about it, it's always good to have someone else to blame, but the fact is that is all it will accomplish. We will once again hear all the cries about gun control, we need to ban guns. We will hear once again about mental health services and marginalized individuals. We will hear all the prayers being offered. We will hear from every corner how wrong that is. Yes, we all know that. And it is sad, the saddest part being, I'm not surprised. That is my thought. 

 

  

 

 

it's a fact

 The trouble with history is you don't have all the facts. It is often said that history is written by the victors, and you can't argue with that. That is indeed the case. I'm thinking about a more personal history however, the history of our families. I've been working on the family tree for years gathering photographs and facts. A task that is becoming increasingly difficult. Today we have to be aware of photoshop that may have altered those photographs. Facts are also becoming unreliable. Consider the possibilities in the future. What gender were you assigned at birth? Right now, at this very moment, fourteen states allow for a non-binary birth certificate. It's called a gender" X" on the birth certificate. The child can later decide on what they want to identify themselves as, the biology doesn't matter. Talk about having the facts confused!

 It's a growing trend today, the rewriting of history based on dubious facts and discoveries. Science is playing an increasing role in this but is the science correct? Well, we are being urged to trust the science. The thing about science however is its very nature is in questioning everything. Do we really have all the facts. You have to say no as new discoveries are made almost daily. Things aren't what we thought them to be. But each generation believes they have the answers. If those answers differ from the previous it is because we have made progress, never have we made an error until the next generation comes along. Then new "facts" are discovered and proven. The reason is a basic one, we don't have all the facts. Truth is, we will never have all the facts.

 That became very clear to me as I was working on my family tree. Finding the facts, the who, what, where, when, and why of those ancestors is a never-ending search. I have tried to create a sort of biography for many of those folks in my past. Mostly though I end up with more questions. I really want to know all the facts. As it turns out there is only one person I know all the facts about, that person is me. And the truth is I am unwilling to share all the facts, some things I just keep to myself. With some things I attempt to fool myself by seeking justification for whatever action I took at that time. 

  Is fact the truth? Well, there is no correct answer to that is there? Fact is objective in nature, based on an objective examination of the evidence. Truth can be subjective; it all depends upon the individuals view of the evidence. We all tend to adopt whichever view suits the situation. When the facts don't fit our desires, we revert to the "truth." When the truth is beneficial to us, we declare that as a fact! See how that works. Facts are subject to change; the truth is not. How often do you change the truth? It's a bit of a quandary isn't it. You have to determine the truth before you establish the fact. But the truth is subjective. We call that changing our mind. In the Christian tradition Jesus says, I am the way, the truth and the Light. He was saying, this is the truth. Faith is adopting that as fact. Is fact and truth the same thing? No, not always. And that, that is a fact.  

Amicus Curiae

 I recently made a posting to Facebook concerning the "constitutional" rights of illegal aliens. My opinion is that they do not have any constitutional rights at all. I was quickly informed about the 14th amendment. I was aware of that amendment and somewhat familiar with exactly what it says. I did go reread it and am including it here for clarity. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  Notice the opening statement. "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens" seems pretty clear to me. The "any person" portion I believe implies that "any person" must also be a citizen. The protections of the constitution as it applies to citizens cannot be abridged by any state law or the denial of due process. And that is what I believe, my opinion on that situation. 

 I understand the constitutional scholars disagree with my interpretation of that. That is, after all, what lawyers argue about every day. This is what it says but what does it mean? The logic of it doesn't say I can't therefore I can, or in this case "anyone" means anyone in the world. My understanding is different, as I said, I think it only applies to citizens. I do think everyone should be extended basic human rights. I just don't believe those basic human rights includes all the protections, privileges and benefits under the constitution of the United States of America. Does every country in the world, or at least in Nato, grant all those same protections should I enter their country illegally? The answer is no, I am subject to their laws. 

 I have been informed, by more than one, that I am wrong. Okay. I can accept that the "decision" at the moment is that I am wrong about the meaning of those words. I feel completely justified in saying I disagree with those scholars, attorneys, justices or whoever. I understand what the "correct" answer is supposed to be according to that majority. If I were taking a test, the answer would be graded as incorrect, I fail the test. The only issue I have with that is I feel it is simply a matter of opinion. The constitution doesn't explicitly say "we the people" are citizens either. Does that mean we aren't? Does that mean that anyone can come into the country and vote for whoever they like? I don't think so.

 I will stand by my statement that as far as I'm concerned illegals have no rights under my constitution. I agree they should be extended basic human rights. What was written in the preamble to that constitution? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In my opinion that is clear enough. We the people, citizens of this nation, ordained it for "ourselves" not for anyone else and the 14th amendment didn't change that at all. All that amendment did was clarify that the individual states could not "abridge" any of those rights on a state level. Think the supremacy cause. The constitution applies to the citizens! I would argue that point before the supreme court! I'm not intimidated by any of that. My opinion is as valid as anyone's'. 

 I'll start working on my Amicus brief any day now. Amicus Curiae. That's who I am.  

talk about it

  You know the problem today? Everything is a national discussion. Take the condition of the president as an example. Does he have some signs of dementia or Parkinson's disease? Or is he simply getting old like the rest of us. It's a national discussion. You feel like you received the wrong "assignment" at birth, it's a national discussion. Everything, no matter how minute or insignificant is a national discussion. And all of that is the result of social media. I'm certain I'm not the first to notice this or question whether it is a good thing or not. It is the proverbial double-edged sword. 

  When I was in grade school, we were encouraged to read the local newspaper. That was our current events. Growing up in a small town those events were things like baptisms, births, birthdays and weddings. It may be what the Lyons club or VFW had planned. There were stories of local interest concerning businesses too. The headlines sometimes were items of national concern or interest. Those stories had to really be something big though, like the passing of the president, landing a man on the moon or something similar. 

 I had two channels on the television. Channel three and eight both emanating from Ct. The evening news was a half hour show back then, you got the facts and that was that. No one was telling you what to think, what it meant, or how you should feel about that, that was on you. In fact, I recall when the last words I heard at the end of the news were, "and that's the way it is." You decided how it was. That stuff was of national interest and as a young kid it didn't concern me at all. I had no idea what any of that had to do with my world. Truth was, that was stuff for other people to worry about, politicians and the leaders, that is their job. Yes, it was good to know what they were talking about doing, or what had happened, but it wasn't my problem. 

  Then came social media. Now everyone is involved with every decision, every discussion on everything. It's a bit overwhelming to be honest about it. I'm not surprised by the rise in anxiety and mental health issues we are seeing today. No one is certain anymore what to do or say! If you fully support one thing you are labeled as a fanatic, belonging to a cult, or conservative! If you don't support everything the same applies except you are a liberal! With social media no matter what you think you have to be "all in." There is no middle ground anymore, that has been taken by social media, by the masses. 

  Consider this. When we speak of taking care of our own first, doing what is best for Americans and supporting American ideals that is called being isolationist. Today we are told everything must be globally based. When I was a kid what was happening in my neighborhood was the most important thing. That was followed closely by what was happening in the town. Things much beyond that were usually someone else's problem. Today I'm supposed to be concerned for the entire world! If I'm not concerned about what is happening to people in the remotest parts of the world, I'm a terrible person! And that is what social media has done, brought all those problems to my doorstep. 

 It is a step toward that New World Order we have all heard about. The global elites wanting control. The global elites are who? All the rich people, right. Control the economy and you control the people. Doesn't matter if that economy is at the kitchen table or the Bilderberg meeting. We are losing the ability we once had. It's cliche but it is the truth, the ability to just mind your own business. That's the problem with social media, everyone is in your business! You can choose to participate or not, that is your choice but choosing not to participate will affect you just as much as participating. The double edge! 

 I will add one more observation. I participate on Facebook and that is the only platform I'm really familiar with, I can't comment on Tic-Tok, Instagram or whatever else people are using. I have noticed the proliferation of "groups" on Facebook over the years. The birds of a feather flocking together. You might call them "isolationists."  I belong to a few and I even created one! It is a relatively safe place to go when I just want to be at home. Oh, they are disagreements, arguments and varying opinions to be found there as well, but generally a comfortable place. Almost like going home. It's my thought that is where the majority of us want to go to escape this social media firestorm. But like a car wreck most of us just have to stop and look. We all want to talk about it.   

choice

  Recently here in Maryland the "legalization" of marijuana was passed by the legislature. I always point out that it is still a federal crime regardless of what the state says. Check the supremacy clause of the constitution if you have any doubts about that. And now I keep seeing these psa's on television about being "cannabis smart." In these little messages you are urged to not smoke pot in public, around children or while driving a vehicle. It's fine to smoke at home or in a private place, you can choose to use! In fairness during this little psa it is also stated you can choose not to smoke marijuana. Ah, the right to choose. That's a big one these days.

  I can't help but think prohibition. All the way back in 1919 the 18th amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale and use of alcoholic beverages. It took quite a long time for that amendment to get passed. Efforts had begun as early 1820. Temperance was being stressed. The reasons are obvious enough. The simple fact being people were drinking a lot of liquor and that lead to societal problems of all types. Not much different from today, those same problems remain. The bill contained a provision that it had to be passed within seven years. It only took 11 months. Enforcement was assigned to the IRS at first but later to the Department of Justice, the prohibition bureau. 

  Enforcement proved to be difficult. In the more rural areas of the country, it was a bit easier. It was in the urban areas that the business of bootlegging, speakeasy's and the sale of alcohol created additional problems. The statistics of the day did show a marked decrease in arrests for drunkenness, there were fewer injuries in the workplace, and less crime overall. But just like now there were those that were opposed to any such restrictions. In the cities organized crime took hold, gang warfare was prevalent, smuggling alcohol across state lines, and the manufacturing of "homemade" alcohol created an entire underground movement. And just like now, a great deal of the alcohol being sold to the lower income people, those that couldn't afford the "good" stuff was often poisonous. Yes, that stuff was being "cut" stuff added to give it that kick. And so, in December of 1933 the 21st amendment was ratified. It remains as the only amendment to completely reverse a previous amendment.

  Why was it repealed? The answer is short and sweet. People are going to do it anyway. That's the reason and the reason for the state's "legalization" of marijuana. It's interesting to note that not all states allowed the sale of alcohol following that repeal. The last state to allow alcohol sales was in 1966. That state was Mississippi. Alcohol was banned for societal reasons. It was called the great experiment at the time. It failed miserably. Why, because people wanted to drink. It was just too hard to enforce the law and so throw your hands up in the air and say, I give up. Same as pot. Well, people are going to do it anyway. 

  The thing is, however, laws are instituted among men to create a safe and fair environment for everyone. The thing is, people are going to do it anyway. So, where do we draw that line. At what point do we say, if you do that you will be punished if you choose to do it anyway. Where do we decide that because everyone is going to do it anyway, we just legalize it? People are going to drive too fast, should we just stop enforcing the speed limits? People are going to say mean things can we enforce a law that says you can't? We're trying, calling that hate speech. Why do we need the second amendment? People are going to have guns anyway. Should we abolish that? Lots of folks think so but they believe that will somehow prevent people from having guns. Prohibition was going to prevent people from drinking alcohol too. 

  It is all about choice. Will you choose to obey the law or not? That all depends upon the punishment received for choosing to defy that law. I firmly believe in deterrence as a method of enforcement. For me it is like raising a child, talking only gets you so far, at some point consequences must be handed out. Now it is true that each one of us responds to that in a different way. Some become compliant, while others become defiant. When the consequence becomes greater than the action most will comply. In short, sometimes it takes a heavier hand! Look at what we are now "allowing" giving our approval too because, people will do it anyway. It's just easier to go with the flow. We have come a long way since the inception of this nation. 

  Our laws define the morality of our nation. If you don't believe that, believe that our laws define the ethics of the nation. They are closely related. Are we going to become a nation where you can simply do whatever you like because everyone is going to do it anyway? That's what morals and ethics are all about, restricting what actions you take. Your moral and ethical values define you as a person. Making the right choice, doing the right thing is the goal. Self-denial and sacrifice are required. People are going to do pretty much whatever they want to do and find some justification for doing it. None of that makes it right. It wasn't right when I was a child and was asked, why did you do that? My response being, everyone else was doing it. I was told, you know better. And you know what, I did, and so do you.