I'm aware

  Saw a meme about something they are calling digital blackface. That's what they are calling it if a white person posts a meme to express an emotion using a gif or meme of a black person. This is an article from CNN. It is supposedly a form of racism, cultural appropriation and perpetuates stereotypes. It's a very bad thing, insidious in nature and should be troubling to us all. I did google it, and it has been around since at least 2017, so not a new thing. Good thing I saw that, or I may have committed a social faux pas. I have seen such and chuckled, luckily no one saw that. I have chastised myself and may donate to some organization or fund as penance. 

  After reading that I was thinking about all of that however, so I guess it serves a purpose. Raising awareness is what I'm told. Well, I've been aware of one thing for a very long time, if you want to make people angry, make fun of them. That always works. Another effective method is to call them offensive names, slurs we call them. We have developed our language to a fine point where we have hundreds, if not thousands of slurs, like arrows in a quiver. And all of them are designed with one purpose in mind, to harm someone else. It's a verbal assault. Adding in some images makes it a visual assault. A great deal of that occurred during WW2 right here in America. Caricatures of German and Japanese people were everywhere. I suspect the same was happening in other nations as well. Propaganda is another term for that. 

  So, what is so offensive about that. The secret is in the caricature, the exaggeration of physical features or in the case of language, phrases or dialects. We have always had one of two reactions to anything that is different than ourselves. We respond either with fear or curiosity. Following the initial reaction, we will attempt to discover how that can benefit ourselves. I'm certain fire was a scary thing at first, but man figured out how to use it. I'm certain men encountering other men was a scary thing at first. We soon learned to be wary of them but discovered we could band together as well. But always the goal is to dominate. And that is the sole purpose of this digital blackface, to display superiority. To make fun. 

  We hear a good deal about this today. We are making laws about it. We hear lectures about it. We even call other people names when they do that! I just shake my head knowing one thing, everyone already knows that; that's the reason they do it. But we are raising awareness by pointing it out. Thing is, it's human nature. People have been and will continue to do that. That's not to say it is right but just to say it will happen. It's funny to me that it is usually only applied to white people that are poking fun, calling names or making caricatures of non-white people. I don't recall ever seeing one that was the other way around. I'm guessing that is simply that white privilege I hear so much about. 

 Well, us honkies are like that, I guess. I've been called a cracker as well, whatever that is supposed to mean. There are Rebels and Yankees. Context is what defines a slur or a fact. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, why are so many upset, calling that cultural appropriation? Calling me a white guy doesn't bother me in the least, I am white. It's like calling me old, I am old. But there are times it does incite the response the person saying that wants, I get upset. Then I can call them a name in return! Maybe include some four letter expletives. It's the difference between what is implied and what is inferred. But progress has been made. We have "Karen" these days. We all know about those Karens out there. It's pretty funny, at least I'm amused. No, wait, I'm offended, that's terrible. I'm aware that is wrong, just wrong. Sorry. 

                                                                             

 

  

I'm trying

  Today I'm posting blog number 5000. That's right, five thousand times I've written about something. My very first post was on August 19, 2010. That was exactly 5,115 days ago. So, I didn't post one hundred and fifteen times over that 14-year period. That's 2.2% of the time. I guess it is an acceptable absenteeism rate. A lot has changed over that time starting with those that "followed" me. I've never really thought of it in that way however, as having followers. I don't consider myself a leader in any sense of the word. I'm just going along the same path as everyone else. None of us will "get out of this world alive" as Hank Williams Sr. pointed out. We are all going to pay taxes too! 

  I think of it as walking down main street or in the mall. There are many shops we can stop in and look at the goods. In some we will buy and in others just move along. Your life does depend upon what it is you're buying. It has always been so as we try to find happiness. That's what we all really want, to be happy. I agree with Aristotle on this one, "Happiness depends upon ourselves." You really can't buy it or inherit it. It is all up to you. It's true that I have made some bad purchases along the way, suffered from buyer's regret, but that was then. No need to cry over spilled milk as the saying goes. Our needs do change over time and so should our purchases. Life isn't a one size fits all proposition. We can develop habits both good and bad. Writing these posts has become somewhat of a habit. I'm aware of it should I not post something. Is a habit something expected? Or is it something anticipated? I'm thinking it is a bit of both.

  I began writing these because I was inspired by another. Somehow, I stumbled upon a blog being written by someone I had known from high school. I was a bit amazed. There I was on the internet, the world wide web, cyber space occupied by literally millions of people, and I find one I know. Not only that but one writing her thoughts or observations. I thought to myself, I could do that. Anyone that knows me would tell you that I have lots of stories to tell, I talk, a lot. Some will tell you I talk too much but that's only the ones that aren't listening. But whatever the case I began writing the very next day and haven't quit, yet. 

    “People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” (Epictetus) I express my views and sometimes people do respond to them. Yes, sometimes they get disturbed. I get it, I'm often disturbed by the views of others as well. I have noticed over the years that people will respond quickly when they don't agree, far quicker than when they do. It's not that important to me that others agree. All I can do is offer my wisdom and advice. That is like everything else in the store, some will browse, some will buy, and some will attempt to get it banned. As Epictetus pointed out people are disturbed by the view they take of things. I'm not trying to change anyone's view; I'm simply presenting mine. I haven't written anything I didn't believe to be true. If there is any deceit it is by omission. I don't believe in "airing my dirty laundry" in a public forum. My intent is not to incite, but to prompt. I hope those reading think about what I write, what I'm trying to convey. If they do not, that is solely the fault of the author. The squeaky wheel gets the grease is an old saying. If I disturb some people that's a good thing. At least I got their attention. It either reenforced their beliefs or made them question them.

  As I continued to write these blogs, I began to view them as a way of leaving a record. I thought, I want others to know exactly what I thought. It's been my experience when others tell your story it is usually a bit different than the way you tell it. A lot depends upon their feelings about you. My grandmother often said, it isn't nice to speak ill of the dead. Today I'm thinking many have never heard that advice, certainly not many practicing it. For that reason, I'm writing it down. This is what I said. Those that I have disturbed may not tell the whole story. Yes, there are those that will speak ill of me. I remind myself however, as long as your name is being spoken you are still around. It's the closest thing to immortality that we are ever going to see. 

  I have on occasion printed some of these blogs. When I first began, I even had some printed in a book. Turns out it is quite expensive. I did that back in 2011. It was only 85 pages. That means I have another 4,915 pages at a minimum. I googled books over 5000 pages and they called them "tomes." Yes, if I did print them all as a single book it would be a tome. I have thought if the funds became available, I would have them all printed as volumes. Then I could give them as gifts to grands and great grands. Like a set of encyclopedias. Maybe I'll look into having that done as an e-book. Wonder what the cost there would be? Still, I like a physical book much better than any digital media files. Nothing like holding a book in your hands. 

  What's the point in writing all these blogs? I think if you asked a "professional" you would get some long-winded explanation. Perhaps someone has already written a dissertation on this very subject. A person with a PhD explaining it all. But the fact is, I just wanted to tell my story. Even if I were the only one reading that would be alright, I like listening to myself. Go ahead and analyze that. I just think we all want to be remembered. I'm leaving these blogs as a reminder. A sort of reference to a life. That's what I'm doing, a review. Merle Haggard may have summed all that up best when he wrote, "I guess everything does change except what we choose to recall" Some ancient Greek philosopher is credited with saying, " a society grows great when men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit" I'm thinking I'll go with that. I'm planting a forest! Whether it grows or gets chopped down I have no control over. All I can do, is try. 

Circumstance

  I have done quite a bit of work on the family tree. It's an interesting pastime made easy by today's technology. Without Ancestry.com and the internet I surely wouldn't have "discovered" as much as I have. I particularly enjoy the old newspaper articles that I have stumbled across. The majority are obituaries but still, there are other articles, stories and tidbits to be found. How often are we mentioned in the papers? Most of us get little attention unless we have done something sensational, usually not in a good way. I have to say I haven't found anything terribly disturbing just a few minor "incidents" that could be chalked up to youth, alcohol, or plain old stupidity. Nothing very disturbing or sensational. I'm taking that as a good thing. Although I have noticed the increase in using the past to benefit you today whenever that is a possibility. Reparations they are calling that. Apologies aren't enough, we want the cash. And I'm not thinking solely of African Americans in that regard, entitlement knows no racial or ethnic boundaries.

  I was thinking about that after seeing another advertisement for a genealogical service or program. It may have been Ancestry.com or one of the others, I'm not certain. It concerned some celebrity discovering his roots. This celebrity was then exclaiming how he felt those ancestors all his life and how they had guided him through all his adversity. Yes, it was quite an endorsement for discovering your ancestors and how they related to you today. Well, all that is fine if that is what you wish to believe but I have a different view. I have gained nothing from distant ancestors. Only living people that I have interacted with have influenced me in any way. Whatever accomplishment or disappointments any of my ancestors may have had did not affect me in any way. Oh, I won't deny that there is some genetic inheritance, can't argue with science, but that is it as far as I'm concerned. To quote an individual that was what we would call "challenged" today "I've got all the sense the good lord saw fit to give me." That sums up my thoughts exactly. 

  Being proud of your ancestors is a good thing, a natural thing. There is nothing wrong with that. Claiming their accomplishments as your own however is quite a different action. To me, it is akin to stolen valor. It's a rather despicable thing to do. It was those ancestors that went through whatever it was or whatever they accomplished. You had absolutely nothing to do with that. Seeking some form of compensation, whether it is monetary, honorary or merely complimentary for that is just wrong. Apologies are only valid to the one that has been violated. Apologizing to their descendants does nothing at all. I have no authority to accept that on their behalf! It's too late for that. 

  We are all simply the result of circumstance. This notion that we can control any of this existence is simply wrong. We can't. I can't control what you or anyone else will do at any given moment. I can't control my circumstance. The only thing I can control is my reaction to the circumstance I find myself in. We often hear it said that we are the victim of circumstance. To believe that you have to first believe that you have somehow been wronged. To believe that you have to place blame on all those that came before, they are all complicit. I don't see it that way at all, they were just like me, reacting to circumstance. We create our condition, not our circumstance.

  I admit I have felt a bit of disappointment in not discovering some ancestor of note. That is to say, someone famous or something like that. Although I had many ancestors that served in the armed forces, since the beginning of the country, I've found no heroes. Everyone made it home from the battles they fought and went on to live normal lives. No big stories to tell. No, as near as I have been able to tell everyone just lived regular lives, going about their business along with everyone else. No one in my family tree suffered from extreme injustice or hardships that I know about. Just everyday people. I have wondered why we look for that, why we feel like we had anything to do with any of the past. 

  That celebrity I listened to was talking about feeling a connection to that past long before he was aware of that past. I'm skeptical about those claims. I have some Scandinavian blood in me but don't feel like a Viking. I have German ancestors but no desire to wear lederhosen or listen to oom-pah music. No, the only thing I feel are the things of my youth tugging at me. I feel my past, no one else's. It's a romantic notion, I get that, to identify with long lost ancestors but that's all it is, a notion. I'm not my father, grandfather, great grandfather or any other ancestor, I'm just me. But I am curious about those that came before, I would like to know about their lives. I see myself as the next chapter in a book. I'm just a part of the story. When will the story end? It will end with me if no one else reads the book. We can't tell what tomorrow will bring but we can read about yesterday. Perhaps that is the feeling we have. We are comparing ourselves to the past. Some would rewrite the story. Not me, I'm just trying to read the book. You can't change the past. You can learn from it, however. Thing is, not everything is a lesson, some things just happen that way. That's called circumstance.   

a Rockwell moment

  Just another remembrance of my grandmother's house. She always, and I mean always, had a pot of coffee on. That's how she said that, the coffee is on. She had an electric percolator, a concession to the modern world I suppose, although she had a coal/woodburning kitchen stove that was never cold. I never asked but I can see her having a big old kettle on that stove, like the Waltons did. Whatever the case was, she always had the coffee on even though she drank tea. The coffee was for her "guests" You never went to her house without being offered a cup. 

 I have written in the past about Grandmother Bennett, quite a few times in fact, but she is worth writing about. She is the grandmother you see in every stereotypical depiction of a grandma. Hair in a bun, check, large apron with pockets on the front, check, slippers on her feet, check. Short in stature, bent over just a bit, wrinkled skin and a bright smile. She didn't drive a car, she didn't go to the store, she seldom left home at all. What she did was wash and iron clothes to earn a living. She was doing that well into her 70's. The source of her "company" was her patrons, delivery men and family members. If she had any other friends or acquaintances, I didn't know about them. Her home was her world. 

 I realize that wasn't always so, as she did work for a wealthy family that lived in East Hampton. She was a pastry chef among other things. Domestic help is what they called that back in her day. How long she remained employed by that family I can't say. My mother was born in 1929, the last of grandma's ten children. She wasn't working for that family by then. She was forty-five years old then. In fact, her eldest daughter Edith had her first child the same day my mother was born. Grandmother Bennett became a mother and a grandmother on the same day! 

  Grandmother Bennett would be one hundred and forty today. That's amazing to me. I mean I realize she passed away fifty-one years ago, but it doesn't seem that long ago to me. She is still fresh in my mind, and I think of her often. I use an electric percolator and so am reminded every day. I always have a pot on in the morning, even taking it with me when I travel, but I don't keep a fresh pot all day. If I thought I would have company, I would. But people aren't the coffee drinkers that they used to be either. Coffee is a morning drink these days and maybe after dinner if you are out. People expect a greater variety, I think. But that offer of a cup of coffee was simply a courtesy extended. Not many took her up on the offer as they went about their business. I suspect in the cold winter months that may have been different, those delivery guys welcoming a hot cup. 

  Even though I wasn't old enough to enjoy a cup of coffee with grandma it remains a fond memory. When I was very small grandma would put a splash of coffee in a cup, fill the rest with milk and sugar and we would have a cup. She made herself a cup of tea. She always kept a pot of water on the stove, added moisture to the air, and was useful for washing dishes or making a cup of tea. She would add water as necessary. Whenever anyone came a cup was offered. If it was accepted everything stopped, Grandma would get the coffee, sit down and chat a bit. It was the only polite thing to do. You were the center of attention, if only briefly. Yes, grandmothers do those things, they understand. Norman Rockwell moments, that's how I would describe that. 

                                                                                   

                                            A Norman Rockwell image. 

   

Blasphemy

  Read an article about a Boston Red Sox player that was suspended for two days without pay for using a "anti-gay" slur. Reportedly he was being heckled throughout the game by this individual and he responded by calling him a *aggot. A coach and an umpire were right there and heard the exchange. This player, Jarren Duran was then suspended without pay for two days. The exact amount of money wasn't mentioned but based on his salary it would be about one thousand dollars. He reportedly makes 176,000 a year. But whatever that amount is, it was then donated to a LGBTQ+ organization. This organization is the largest advocacy group for the gay community in the country. PLAG, the parents and friends of lesbians and gays. This player hasn't been the first to be suspended or have their pay taken for doing that. 

  After he uttered that phrase because of the heckling he did apologize and admitted how wrong that was. He explained how it was in the heat of the moment. Nothing was said to the fan that was doing the heckling however, guessing a fan can just say whatever they like and that's cool. The players are supposed to be professionals and display no emotional response to any of that. But the thing is, he said something about the LGBTQ+ community! We are not allowed to have any opinion on that at all other than total support. To say anything against that is akin to blasphemy! The response from our government is the same as the response the Jewish leaders had to Jesus! Blasphemer! You must not say anything negative about a gay person. not ever, for any reason! You just can't do that. 

  I'm not advocating for the use of slurs of any kind. That isn't what I'm saying here. I am saying that people get emotional. Yes, players have feelings despite being a professional. Why is it alright for a fan to heckle a player without any repercussions? You don't think it has anything to do with ticket sales, do you? That was the reason given for this players suspension and loss of pay. The official statement being, we want to make sure all fans are welcomed and feel included in the experience. In short, we want to sell tickets.  Okay, that's fair enough, I agree with the suspension. But why should his pay be donated to the PLAG organization? Is that to signal that the Red Sox baseball club supports gay rights? Is that the message intended to be sent. A virtue pendant! 

  It has become apparent to me that the establishment clause of the constitution needs to be amended. Currently it does create that separation of church of state. A separation intended to prevent religious groups from establishing laws, expending taxpayers' dollars on religious events and all of that. I'm thinking we now need to include this LGBTQ+ business in that clause. Not all Americans believe in this or support it. Indeed, many find it morally reprehensible! It's as offensive to some as is it upsetting to others. 

 It is being treated as though it were a religion! Those members are certainly enjoying the protection of the government in their beliefs. Burning the American flag is a "right", burning a rainbow flag is a crime! Calling me a homophobe is free speech, calling someone other than an approved "letter" is hate speech and a crime. The White house was lighted with the colors of the rainbow when in 2015 the supreme court ruled on same-sex marriages. If that wasn't a display of government support for the LGBTQ+ agenda I don't know what would be. Almost like a Bat Signal! Yes, it was an endorsement of belief. Remember we can't have Christmas trees at the White House, they have to be holiday trees. Can't give any indication that the government supports any religion.

 The only thing upsetting to me is this "taboo" about saying anything negative or contradictory to the LGBTQ+ community. It seems like I can certainly be criticized for my beliefs, whether they be religious or not. I can be called a homophobe, I can be told I believe in a make-believe God, I can be told how terrible my entire race is because of the past. I am told I should give my absolute undying support for a lifestyle I don't agree with. If I don't, I am punished for that. I'm just supposed to sit down, shut up and say nothing. Meanwhile this other group are flying their flags, painting building in rainbow lights, having parades and enjoying an entire month of "celebrating" their choice. I am to say nothing. And that group is now enjoying the full support of the government. The "religion" of gayness. Why it is blasphemy to say anything about any of that. You will be punished! 

heritage

 While many are busying claiming this or that, their heritage, as it is being called, I find myself on the outside of that. I make no claims on cultural heritage. I'm just an American. That's how I view myself. I have done a good deal of work on the family tree, discovering where my ancestors came from, but I don't make any claim to any of that. I have zero knowledge or experience in being Swedish, German or English. I have never lived in any of those cultures. It's my feeling unless you live in that culture you cannot understand that culture. The closest thing I can come to is in my claim in being from the New England area of the United States. 

 It's a fact, we are not all the same, we Americans, and our attitudes and philosophies vary widely. I suspect the same can be said for other nations as well, although we tend to stereotype other nations. The French are into art and food. The English keep a stiff upper lip and are rather pale people with bad teeth. Those Scandinavians are hardy souls most likely Vikings willing to kill you. Africans run around the jungles. I'm not sure what other nations have to say about Americans. I've heard that we are all rich, spoiled brats that get everything we want. 

  All of that is of course nonsense. Stereotypes. I would say that I have inherited (heritage) that stoic philosophy attributed to those from New England. To be stoic is to remain calm in the midst of the storm. Stoics don't really have those extremes in emotions that apparently affect others. It's true that New Englanders aren't known for their outgoing personalities. What we are known for is that stick to it attitude, resolve in the face of obstacles. That probably stemmed from facing those winters. Not much you can do about mother nature, might as well get used to it. New Englanders tend to stick together, community is very important to them. Outsiders are always viewed with suspicion. Self-reliance is key to being a New Englander. Remember it was those from New England that formed this nation in the first place. 

  When I was in school, I didn't learn much about the ancient Greeks and the school of stoicism. Perhaps if I had gone on to college I would have. Over the years however I have read a good bit of that philosophy. That came about not by design though, I just discovered those guys were saying the same thing I had heard from my parents and grandparents. I didn't know that is what Marcus Aurelis or Epictetus had pointed out a few thousand years ago. Today our educational system is driven more by the philosophy of Plato. I've read where there are four philosophical perspectives in general use. They are, essentialism, perennialism, progressivism and social reconstruction/critical pedagogy. I haven't read up on any of that and so have no comments. It all seems a bit too emotional in my view. We all need to just calm down. 

  I remember reading this, it would be in a meme these days, but I read it long before that term was in general use, "It's difficult to remember the objective is to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators." But that is what a stoic person will do, remain calm. It seems to me far too many today are concerned with the welfare of the alligator or concerned with the water and environmental impacts. The point is to drain the swamp! Just deal with all the other stuff as necessary. For me it explains this rising concern with mental health. People are driving themselves nuts with worrying about things they can't control. You can't change the weather or change human nature. People will be people regardless of any flags you fly, slogans you repeat, or laws you pass. Deal with it! 

  I make no claim to any heritage. I'm an American from the New England area. It is where I was born and raised. The people I most admire, although they may not be famous or wealthy, came from there too. The majority lived in my town! Strong willed, determined, hardworking people that are loyal to the end. People we said where of " the finest kind" in local parlance. Yes, they were all stoic people not given to outward displays of affection. They didn't fly any flags, wave any banners and insist others adopt their ways. They just went about their lives, their business in their own way. Stoic, you bet they were, until aroused. Make them mad enough and it's "Katie bar the door"      

leading the way

  I've said it often enough, I'm not one much for fad or fashion. What I mean by that is that I've never been one to be much concerned with any of that. I think it is the result of several factors. Most importantly, it was because my parents couldn't afford that. My fashion came from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue, or a local store named Brills. When I got older and began to buy some of my own choices, I discovered that those fashions didn't look quite the same on me as they did on the stars advertising them. There was that and they did cost a good deal more. I found the cheap stuff got the job done and so was satisfied with that. And today, well today I really have no idea what is in fashion. Are the kids still wearing those clothes that look like they are in rags? I'm not seeing the Goth kids around much anymore; guess they went back into the shadows.

  I'm certain someone with a Phd has written papers on this subject, studied it. Fashion is a reflection of current social attitudes. Although my thinking is fashion leads the way in social change. The famous story, clothes make the man, explored that idea a bit. We do become a bit of what we dress. Later in life we maintain that dress because it is what we are comfortable with. At 71 I would look silly wearing what a teenager wears, although I see those that try. When I was younger, we called those folks eccentric. A polite way of saying they didn't have better sense. That's getting to be a positive thing in today's world. It is funny how clothes can make you change your outlook. 

  When I was young most men wore a hat. It wasn't always a ball cap though, fedoras for the businessmen were common enough. I saw lots of hats and caps. The guys pumping gas would often have those style caps, the man with the star! The milkman, postman, and others all had hats. Yes, some of the fisherman wore ball cap style hats although they were a bit different. Many had those hats with the long green shaded brim. Haven't seen one of those in years now. I suspect they are a regional thing however, like cowboy hats.  I began wearing a hat when I was a teenager. I wear one 99% of the time to this very day. I have had all of the aforementioned hats at one time or another with one exception, that service station hat. I have looked online for one, I only want the real deal one, not a replica. Well, turns out they are "vintage" or "antique" and the asking prices reflect that. I'm not willing to pay several hundred dollars for a used hat that may or may not fit. If I had only thought to buy them back then. Isn't that way it always is?

  I just ordered a new fedora. I have one that is rather a heavy wool and suitable for the winter months. I wanted one a bit lighter for the fall. I've grown a fondness for fedoras I think because my dad had one. Now dad had a three piece pin stripe suit, very sharp with those wings tipped shoes, brown and white, that were the height of fashion in the forties. He had his fedora, in a hat box, that he wore to complete the outfit. Only worn for those occasions that required you to be dressed up. My parents didn't go to many of those events. I think it was the suit he wore when they got married. I do know it was the only suit he ever owned. He had sports jackets but that was about it. I went out to buy a suit a while back and discovered they are harder to find than I expected. You have to go to a higher end clothier to find them. I remember when Sears sold three-piece suits. 

  As to fashion and society in general we have become casual. I think it is quite obvious if you just think about it a minute or two. As a result, people are far more casual, far more aggressive, than in past years. Remember when you wouldn't engage in certain activities because, I've got my good clothes on. I did have to change clothes after school, put on my play clothes. Like in that story, clothes make the man, I do believe people were more polite when they were wearing their good clothes. Social standing was obvious enough, the white collars and the blue collars. 

  That isn't quite as obvious today. And of course, there is another observation I have made and frequently speak of, polite company. A concept that in my view has been relegated to the past. Yes, there is a lack of decorum in society today. Maybe that could be restored if we all just "dressed" up. I see a lot of "Emperors" these days. We all know that story as well. As far back as the ancient Greeks the way you dress has been known to affect the way others interact with you. Our own nature may be influenced by that as well, less likely to fight in our good clothes. And don't we say, we wear many hats? Hats are an indication of occupation. They used to be anyway. I don't know there is just something about a good hat. Personally, I got tired of those ballcaps. And when they started turning them backwards that was the last straw for me. That's just "too cool" for me. 

  You could say I am choosing to make a fashion statement by wearing a fedora. There are different variations on that hat, and some are in style today, mostly with people in a band. They are also getting associated with certain ethnic groups. I'm a fan of the classic 1940's style fedora. I especially like them when they look worn. Thing is, it takes years to get a hat to look like that. I'm thinking I don't have enough time for that, so I'll have to go with the fresh look. So yes, I guess I am concerned with fashion after all, it's just that I don't really care what is in fashion. I really do wish manners; courtesy and respecting others would come back in fashion. Now that would be great. Could be all we need to do is change our hats. I'm leading the way.      

being me

 We have all had our encounters with auto correct. Sometimes it does amuse us and at others can cause confusion or embarrassment. I can hear that being used as an excuse, it was auto correct, I didn't write that. A 21st century response like, the dog ate my homework. Not being tech savvy, it took me a while to understand that I could hit the "tab" button and the next word or phrase being suggested by the computer will be printed. I admit I have found that to be useful at times, but I began using it more to just have it go away than anything else. I would just as soon it didn't do that. But yesterday, for the first time, I got a message asking me if I wanted AI to make a suggestion in my writing. I immediately spoke out loud to my computer, no, I don't want you to suggest anything! I'll write my own story thank you very much.

 I have been hearing a great deal of talk about this artificial intelligence. Just like everything else there are pros and cons. I have to admit I'm not really understanding exactly what it is and what the limits are. I have never been one to readily adopt the latest thing or to pretend that I understand it. I'm still working on a Rubik's cube. I have seen where there are instructions online explaining how to do that. But this artificial intelligence stuff I'm not real sure about. I've heard where it doesn't really make any decisions on its' own, it doesn't think, just offers possibilities based on some algorithm. It makes suggestions, kind of like your parents or friends would make. They always figure they are smarter than you are too. The danger is when the computer begins to think for itself, kind of like what you did in grade school. That didn't always work out well. I'm also being told AI is just learning. 

  Now the suggestion this AI was making regarding my writing was grammatical. I have grown accustomed to and indeed somewhat dependent upon spell check. I find that a very useful tool and saves a lot of time. I'm thinking that dictionaries are going to be as scarce as the World Book Encyclopedia in the near future if they aren't already. How are we going to make a "grammatical" dictionary? There are many dialects, each with its' unique expressions. We don't even have dictionaries that can "spell" the dialects we speak. 

 This is what Britanica has to say: " A dialect is chiefly distinguished from other dialects of the same language by features of linguistic structure—i.e., grammar (specifically morphology and syntax) and vocabulary. In morphology (word formation), various dialects in the Atlantic states have clim, clum, clome, or cloome instead of climbed, and, in syntax (sentence structure), there are “sick to his stomach,” “sick at his stomach,” “sick in,” “sick on,” and “sick with." Will we have to make a selection concerning that in the settings portion of our computers to let AI know where we were born, lived, or what we want others to believe? Social media is especially prone to imposters. I could certainly add a layer of deceit if I just have the computer write in the proper dialect. I wonder if it is AI that is generating some of the terms we hear, terms like child poverty, reproductive freedom and assault rifles. 

  Another issue that occurred to me is plagiarism. If this AI is making these suggestions to me, wouldn't it also make the same suggestion to others? That seems reasonable as we are talking about a machine. Regardless of whether this machine is learning or simply following that algorithm I'm thinking that is what will happen. Then after having "written" whatever it is and publishing that someone else may claim, I wrote that. Are we going to have to include time stamps for everything we write or post? I'm not really that concerned about plagiarism of anything I have written, I would be flattered if someone did, but I can see where it could be a serious issue. I saw on the news where a disgruntled ex-employee used AI to generate a tape to make it appear his boss was using racial slurs. That boss came under close scrutiny and was only cleared when it was reported that an expert had determined it was generated by AI. Still, there were those that said, yeah that's what they say but the guy paid someone off. You know how that goes, once accused many will convict you regardless of any evidence or testimony. 

  Well, AI is here to stay, and I may as well get used to that idea. As with everything new it can be used and abused. Even the most innocuous of things can become harmful. I just hope that there are ways to identify this and keep it under control. It's a brave new world we are living in. Of course, I remember when having a wireless remote control on your television was like magic. Now I can turn on my air conditioner from my phone a half hour before I even get there. I guess I could have AI just write these blogs if I wanted that. Just enter a subject/topic and select "Bonacker" as the dialect to be used. Tomorrow I could choose "New Jersey" as my dialect. Might be interesting, how do they talk in the mid-west? What's the dialect out there?    

history is the precedent

  The city states attorney for Baltimore is a man named Ivan Bates. I rather like his policies and his thinking. He is a Democrat. He does rub his fellow Democrats in the city leadership the wrong way at times. That's because of his policies. He tends to have those more conservative values associated with the Republicans, including myself. He is often seen on television in the local news for his activism in the community. He is out and about in the community quite frequently. I believe he is sticking true to his background. He served in the Army following in his father's footsteps. He became an attorney and established a mid-sized law firm in Baltimore. All in all, quite successful. Oh, I forgot to mention that he is a black man because that doesn't concern me, but it's supposed to be important to mention that these days. So, I'll raise my virtue signaling flag! 

  Now I've seen Mr. Bates on television many times. In his latest appearance he was taking a walk through the city's neighborhoods where the crime rates are highest. He was accompanied by a host of individuals. What struck me about that was when he stopped to talk to the news reporters. He was telling them how he saw "quality of life" violations just about every forty or fifty feet. He was concerned about that as he stated how can you expect the people to care about their neighborhoods when this is allowed to continue. He explained just what violations he was talking about. Many are what we once called crimes of moral turpitude. Those crimes are defined as, "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community." Not my words, a legal definition taught in law schools. The state of California defines those as, "an act of baseless, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowman, or to the society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." That passage from the state of California judicial system. 

  As I was reading those passages, doing my research as it where, I was warned to not confuse that with "social morality." Social morality was defined as, "a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups." They are the things that Ivan Bates was describing as "quality of life issues." Social morality is an everchanging set of standards. That was an explanation I read concerning why you can't confuse the two. Well, I just have to say, you can't call something a standard if you keep changing it. Social morality has always had a standard and that standard is the reason for establishing moral turpitude laws. Laws that we change according to what is acceptable in the society. 

  The establishment of justice is the goal of law. What is justice? On the surface justice simply is being treated fairly. The political philosopher John Locke was perhaps the greatest inspiration for the establishment of our republic as anyone else in history. His theories and ideas are quite evident throughout all our founding documents. He wasn't the first to have these thoughts however as others inspired him. John Locke spoke of natural rights. They were the obvious ones we have all heard many times. Life, liberty and the pursuit of (happiness) although he said, property. Yes, property brings happiness. John Locke knew we all want stuff; we need stuff and stuff makes us happy. Another way to say that is, money. The right to life, the right to live freely. 

  Locke goes on to explain that in order to achieve these things we have to surrender a certain degree of our "rights" to government. Those rights involve morality. Morality must be established within the society in order for that society to function in an equitable fashion for everyone. John Locke stated that the establishment of a religion as a moral basis wasn't a necessity. Morality can be based solely on our natural rights. He argued that God's rights and laws are only discoverable through God. Natural rights are discoverable through reason alone. Many scholars have debated all of this for centuries. I contend the debate will continue for an infinite period of time. Only when man is no more will that debate end. 

  The question becomes what "moral" issues should the government have the final say upon? If the government can only legislate what is acceptable to the public in general, how do we determine that?  What I find completely acceptable may be totally repulsive to others. How do we determine who is right, who has that right, or if it qualifies as a right? Do I have the right to do as I please as long as that behavior doesn't cause any physical harm to others? We certainly have thousands of laws that indicate otherwise. Crimes of moral turpitude not to be confused social morality. Ivan Bates calls them "quality of life" issues. Those issues that affect others enjoyment of the environment in which they live. You can't smoke cigarettes inside buildings because of the health issue. That is the official government explanation. I'd suggest it came about as a result of a "quality of life" issue. Your smoke is bothering me. 

  Some nations, most notably Muslim nations, use their religious texts as the basis for law. The whole quality of life issue is easily settled in a court of law. This is what the book says! These laws come from a divine power higher than any man-made laws. They are enforced by divine power! The government is simply acting on behalf of that deity. You have no right whatsoever to disagree or violate those laws in any way, shape or form. Although not a part of the original constitution the first amendment to that document was the establishment clause. It was to address the concerns of minority religious groups in the United States. To that end it was written that the federal government shall not establish a state religion. " Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" is the wording. It's important to understand that that law only applies to the federal government, to the congress. It does not apply to the individual states. A precept that went unchallenged for about 150 years. That's why individual states had laws that we called "blue laws" and other holidays and observances that were related to Christianity.  There were in keeping with custom and traditions generally accepted in society. 

  And that is what Ivan Bates calls "quality of life." Is it an individua thing or a societal thing? Is it a governmental issue as well? Yes, they are all interrelated. We are currently preparing for and deciding upon our next president. That decision will come down to those "quality of life" issues that are most important to us as individuals. That is who we will ultimately vote for. The president and by extension the controlling party in congress will establish our social morality. Once a precedent is set it takes the Supreme Court to overrule that. Between 1798 and 2020 the court issued 25,544 opinions and judgements. They overruled precedents one hundred and forty-five times, just about 1/2 of one percent.    So, yeah, rarely does that happen. It's important to note that the majority of those overturned have been done since 1954. When we change precedence, we change social morality. The most famous of these changes would be Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal) and Roe V Wade (abortion). There are a number of others concerning labor, homosexual intercourse and interracial marriages. All being moral issues. 

  Are moral issues and quality of life issues the same thing? Yes, in my opinion they are indeed the same thing. The morality of our nation, the United States of America has generally been established based on Judeo-Christian teachings and values. Yes, we have the establishment clause to prevent those teachings and texts from creating civil and criminal law. Still, the majority of the people adhere to those basic principles and precepts regarding what is moral and what is not. We are seeing a shift in that today. The court must stay in line with that shifting morality. But how are we then to establish social morality? The only recourse is through the vote. What political parties call their platform. Do we completely abandon the old? Rewrite that constitution for a new day? That is exactly what some propose, an establishment of a new social morality. Are we going to end the greatest experiment in government altogether. Is it the end of the Republic? If history is the precedent, that is what the future holds. 

handy

  Today we have infomercials that can last for a half hour or longer extolling the latest new thing. We've come a long way from the days of those ads from Ronco and K-Tel. You do have to be from a certain generation to remember them. I was reminded yesterday when I saw an advertisement on Facebook. It was showing the "fishing pole holster" and how it solved all your problems. It had people dropping their rods in the water, people trying to light their cigarettes, open a beer or use their cell phone. In every case they attempted to sit their pole down only to suffer some mishap. But the solution was at hand, the holster! People were putting their poles in those holsters and then withdrawing them faster than Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter. What a concept. Made we think of the "Pocket Fisherman." Lots of jokes about that one. 

  My wife didn't remember the pocket fisherman, so I went to the internet. Lots of them available as collectibles. I saw prices as high as 125 dollars being asked for examples still in the bubble pack. As far as I could tell no one is still manufacturing them today. They were distributed by Ronco! The owner of Ronco, Ron Popeil is credited with that invention. He invented a good number of gadgets. Who could forget the chop-o-matic or the dial-a-matic. The dial-a -matic was a device to slice tomatoes. According to Mr. Popiel it would slice tomatoes so thin they only had one side! I admit I did find those advertisements entertaining. I read were the chop-o-matic should get the credit for creating those commercials. The chop-o-matic was used to chop onions without shedding a tear and could also chop all sorts of vegetables. It became a problem for the salesmen demonstrating the product, they couldn't carry all those vegetables around. Ron Popiel solved the issue by filming the device in action, narrating the process and the infomercial was born. 

  Ronco and K-Tel sure had the devices we all needed every day. Then came Billy Mays, another terrific spokesman. Who could forget about Oxi-clean, Kaboom and orange glow. If it was a household product Billy was your man. We may not know the name of the man, but I think we all remember Sham-Wow the magic little towel that could hold ten times it's weight in water. Now that's entertainment. I'm thinking those advertisements may have been so successful because they did remind you of the advertisement on the back cover of comic books. C'mon live sea monkeys and x-ray glasses, who wouldn't want those? 

  Those companies like K-Tel and Ronco sold millions of dollars in merchandise. Some it worked fairly well and some of it gave questionable results. But the snake oil salesman have been around as long as money. I'm old enough to remember the door-to-door salespeople. An occupation today far too hazardous regardless of any profit, it's just not worth it! You would get arrested for trying that today. The only ones left at Jehovah's witnesses, and they go with the protection of God. But all those companies are gone now replaced by the Chinese outfits like Temu. They make fantastic claims about their products, offer amazing values, and in some cases free shipping when you buy two or more. They operate on the same principle as those ads on the comics, K-Tel and Ronco. The products sound just too good to be true. Generally, they keep that promise, they are too good to be true. Yet, we all keep buying that stuff, drawn in by the hype, the pitch. We just have to swing at it. You know that fishing pole holster might not be such a bad idea. Well, it is time to think about Christmas shopping. 

                                                                                

                                            I never did get one of these bad boys. Maybe it's time

                                             for a vintage Christmas. I'll put it on my list. 

too much

 I haven't been listening to the speeches at the DNC. I just can't bring myself to it. I don't listen to the speeches at the RNC either. All politicians come from the same mold. I really don't want to hear their promises. Regardless of their party affiliation I quickly grow tired of them telling me what they are going to do. I'd listen closer if they were asking me what I wanted them to do. But the truth is there are only going to say whatever the pollsters tell them they should be saying. That's one of the problems with Trump, he just goes off script way too often. As a result, he steps on toes and hurts people's feelings. 

  I did hear just a bit about Kamala and her plan to stop price gouging. Just how she plans on doing that I haven't heard nearly as much about. If she intends to set prices, that has already been tired in other nations, communist nations. It didn't work there, and it won't work here. Can we really establish the maximum profit margin you are allowed to make? I'm only allowed to charge "X" amount for goods and services. I'm a firm believer in you get what you pay for. I can buy those cheap Chinese goods but that's what I'm getting, cheap Chinese goods. Is not the objective in business to provide the customers with the best possible product at the lowest price? If I can only charge so much that will certainly limit the degree of quality. To sell cheaply you have to cut production costs. You don't need a degree in business to understand that much. 

  We have all heard about the program that pays farmers to grow certain crops. It has had several different names over the years. In its' original form the Agricultural Adjustment Act proposed by FDR as a part of the new deal was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. The government could not impose a special tax on food processors. It took another five years, but the act was rewritten, renamed and passed through the legislature. Portions of it continue until this day. Billions of dollars go to farmers to grow certain crops and to not grow others under the guise of soil conservation. Yes, the Democrats were saving the planet as far back as 1938. If you are now also going to tell those farmers how much they can charge for their crops where is that revenue going to come from? You can't tax the food processors. Only one person left to tax, you, the taxpayer. Yeah, a loaf of bread might be ten cents cheaper, but your taxes will be fifteen cents more.

  You see I didn't need to listen to hours of speeches and praising each other on the amazing advances the parties have made. like I said, either party. All I really need to do is go to the grocery store or buy some other commodities or services. The bottom line is always in dollars and cents. You are not going to grow the economy by limiting how much a person is allowed to make. The purpose of government isn't to strangle the manufacture or production of goods and then limit how much profit a business can make. We live in a free market society. The prices are based on supply and demand. The government should not limit supply. That's what the original Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to do. If the Democrats get their way that is what is going to happen. If I'm the supplier and I can only make a set amount of profit on my product, I'm going to make less of that product. By making less the price will rise. 

  It's a question I have asked many times. How much money is too much? What is the threshold? If I can only make a profit of say 6% how much money can I make in total? Is a million dollars the limit, two million? Can an artist only charge so much for their work? How much is a mechanic allowed to charge? Just who gets to decide on that? Is that the function of government. No, the function of government is to regulate commerce to provide an equal playing field. The government doesn't get to tell me how many "points" I get to score in the game. I just have to play by the rules of the game. In other words, the government has no business telling me how much money I can make.  

the way it is today

  I was remembering Paul Harvey and the rest of the story after reading a posting on Facebook. I thought we sure could use a bit of that these days. Those short stories always solved a mystery even when you didn't know there was one. I remember hearing him on the radio. At first his stories were just a segment on another show. He got his own program in 1976 that remained on air until his death in 2009. Interesting to note is that it was his son, Paul Harvey Jr. that wrote the majority of those pieces beginning in 1976. He lived to be one hundred. He passed away February 24,2023. Paul Harvey Sr. passed on February 28, 2009 at the age of ninety. Did you know he was also a concert pianist. That's a little of the rest of the story about Paul Harvey.

  The problem we have today is there are just too many stories. We can't seem to get to the rest of the story. What I'm saying is there doesn't appear to be a final answer. Prior to Paul Harvey we had Walter to tell us, "That's the way it is" every evening. There was no doubt about that, it was indeed the way it was. Exactly what it was, was left up to you to decide. That was the beauty in that. We weren't being told what to think or how to think. We were simply given the facts as they existed. The facts weren't run through the "does it fit the narrative" mill before being broadcast. The facts didn't care what political party it offended. The facts remained the same. It's a stark contrast to listening to the news today.  This is what Walter had to say, "The democratic system is challenged by the failure in television because our evening news programs have gone for an attempt to entertain as much as to inform in the desperate fight for ratings." I think he would be outraged if he could hear the "reporting" today.

  Now with Paul Harvey we got the rest of the story. It was an explanation that we could all understand and relate too. Often focused on historical events it did tell you what really took place. It always had that surprise ending. We learned about famous people and how they achieved their successes or failures. Usually, you didn't know who he was talking about until that surprise ending. That was followed by, "and now you know," the rest of the story. 

 Yes, the stories were generally upbeat and positive ones. They often contained messages of hope and encouragement. They showed how in the face of adversity the human spirit could prevail. Uplifting, you bet they were. We sure could use stories like that today instead of all the stories about being victims. Stories about our desperate struggle for inclusion and validation. Stories about deceit and corruption. That is the rest of the story we keep hearing today and it is depressing. I'm not hearing anything optimistic from any of the political pundits of today. All I hear are attacks and counterattacks. Optimism is being confused with fanaticism. Anger confused with activism. The truth has become offensive! 

  I was remembering Paul and Walter and a time when you could trust the news for reliable information. You knew going in that Paul Harvey was just going to tell you the whole story. You might call it trivia, the little known and misunderstood portions of history. With Walter he simply reported the news, the facts as he viewed them. I didn't know at that time he was a registered Independent. I didn't know he supported Bill Clinton or anything about his activism and fight against windmills. I didn't know his politics. 

 Today I listen to the news broadcasters and my feeling is they are simply reading what was written for them. I don't know their politics either, but the political leaning of their employers is certainly clear enough. And that's the big difference today. Today the news is scripted, written and prepared to present a story, push a narrative. We aren't told "the way it is" rather we are informed the way it should be. And only "government officials" know what is best for you. And that's the rest of that story. 

to a degree

  I'll start by saying I do not have a degree from any college or university. Take that for whatever you feel it is worth. I'll just say I believe intelligence and education are different things altogether. I will add that having one does not indicate the presence of the other. The ability to remember and recall information is not an indication of intelligence. I can hear some of you saying, that's what the uneducated people always say. It's true that we all want to justify our positions in life. It's my feeling that is what having a degree is about in the first place. It is something I can offer as "proof", a form of intellectual cash, the price of admission. The highest form of this cash is obtaining a PhD. It isn't an easy process to get that. The process is quite rigorous. It is also a degree given in an "honorary" form, although other honorary degrees are awarded as well. Regardless, they do not carry the same weight as a "real" degree. 

  On my profile page for Facebook, I included this statement. I attended the University of Life. That was, of course, written tongue in cheek. A flippant remark designed to amuse. It amuses me, if no one else. I do chuckle every time some anonymous Facebook intellectual remarks about that, having read my profile page. Then they attempt to use is as an insult or disparage my education. Yes, it's pretty amusing to me. I could just as easily have written that I have a PhD. I laugh realizing if I had written that they wouldn't have accepted that as the truth nearly as readily. They only went to my profile page when they didn't have a retort to my comment. They needed something to use and went in search of that. They were "doing their research. " 

  I thought about that after seeing a new ad campaign on television. It isn't really an advertisement I suppose as it isn't selling anything but has a slogan. "Tear the paper." Have you heard that one yet? I haven't listened closely enough to remember what agency is paying for that bit of advice. The advice is to promote those at work, even when they don't hold an official degree from a college or university. A sort of acknowledgment that you don't necessarily need that degree to be of benefit to the company. Is it a devaluing of the current currency? Seems like it to me. An admission that having a degree doesn't always equate to success. That has been the promise for quite some time. Getting your degree was like buying your ticket to the club. Now it has been discovered they are allowing just anyone to join the club. 

  It is something I have noticed over the years. I have mentioned all this before. When I graduated high school that diploma was a feather in your cap. It was a sign that you had stayed the course, completed the task at hand. There were still many people in the workforce that didn't have that paper. It wasn't long after that having a high school diploma became a necessity, the minimum requirement. It wasn't a feather in the proverbial cap, it was the cap. Holding a degree above that one, whether a two year or four-year program were now the feathers you wanted. They were your ticket to climbing the corporate ladder. That is where the money was being made, in the big corporations. The white collar, desk job, with a corner office! 

  So, I see this ad advising employers to tear the paper. It also encourages people to learn a trade. Turns out we do need those that work with their hands and their brains! I've always felt that those we call tradesmen didn't require a piece of paper to validate themselves. The proof was in whatever they built, repaired or created. The old adage, the proof is in the pudding applied. Contrary to popular belief you can't teach a skill, you have to learn that. You can teach the theories, the practical application of knowledge, but that doesn't mean the person can perform the task. It is like I was told, understanding it isn't doing it, doing it is doing it. 

  The problem we have here is too many chiefs and not enough Indians. We have reached a tipping point in that regard. College degrees have become about as useful as a high school diploma. They are expected to a great extent. The minimum requirement. The issue has become that the minimum requirement just isn't good enough to get the job done. We need those that are actually producing the product. We need the working man. That is what "tearing the paper" is all about. It's about looking past that piece of paper and promoting the person that has earned that promotion through demonstrated ability. What a novel concept! 

  I'm being told that I should pay the loans taken out by those buying that piece of paper. I'm supposed to do that because they can't find employment that pays that much money. In some cases that is directly the fault of whatever course of study they pursued. You really can't just study whatever interests you and expect to be paid top dollar for that. Perhaps basket weaving is your passion, but it won't pay the bills. You see that's the thing, just having a degree isn't a guarantee. There is no law that says an employer has to pay you a minimum amount based on your degree of education. The government does mandate a minimum wage and that is all you are entitled to regardless. 

  The bottom line is always the same. Those that make the most money for their employer make the most money. The catch is the employer will always attempt to pay the employee the least amount of money. That's because they want the profit. That's what business is all about. You have to earn your feathers, not buy them in universities, colleges or online. Earn your feathers and when you get enough you too can be a chief!             

Open the window

  Benjamin Franklin famously said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You can't argue with that logic. It is far easier to prevent something from happening than it is to repair the damage afterwards. I do think that advice needs to be tempered with the realization that you can't prevent the future. What I'm saying is, things happen. We should learn from the past but not allow it to cripple your future. Attempting to prevent tomorrow and its' turmoil and troubles can consume whatever happiness you have gathered today. Some Biblical advice is all things in moderation. I'd argue that includes those things not necessarily beneficial to us but cause little harm. Or as I was often told, don't sweat the small stuff. It is the big picture that matters. Keep your eye on the prize. The difficulty is in defining just what that prize is. Something that is different for each of us. 

  Those thoughts came to mind as I read about a proposal to ban some more things because they are known to cause cancer. I'm not a scientist or a doctor but I think just being alive can cause cancer. It's my thinking people have been getting cancer since man was first on this earth. We may not have called it that, may not have had any inkling of what it was, but it was here. I read where there is an ancient Egyptian papyrus that describes cancer. What could have been causing it back then? Could it have been prevented. I doubt that. Yes, I agree that we can induce that response in our bodies by introducing certain substances, stick your hand in a fire and you will get burned, but that doesn't mean we should start banning everything. Just what is the threshold level? Remember when saccharin was found to induce cancer in lab rats. Yes, it took between 3.5% and 7% of their diet to get that reaction. That's a whole lot of saccharin. It was banned in 1977. The ban was lifted in 2000. The warning label was also removed from products containing saccharin and is being sold in at least 150 countries. Why, because it is alright in moderation.

  I began thinking about this when I learned that California and New York have banned gas stoves in new home construction. I haven't done an exhaustive research study on any of that. I'm not going to pretend that I have a PhD level understanding of the hazards causing this ban. I'm really not that interested or concerned about it. I don't live in New York or California. I did read a little about methane and nitrogen oxides being emitted by those nasty gas stoves and how they are contributing to global warming. I read where we need to support this new green initiative to save the plant. I read where wood stoves are just as bad! Only clean electrically produced heating and cooking devices are safe for the planet! I also read where methane and nitrogen oxides are only found in trace amounts in the atmosphere. 

  If larger amounts of these gases are being found in our homes is that the fault of the stoves and heaters? I can see where they would be identified as the source. Does that mean we should ban them? I'd suggest a better solution is to simply open a window and allow some fresh air into the room. It's my feeling we are living in isolated environments to put it in modern terminology. Back when I was a kid, we called it getting some fresh air. My home wasn't a climate-controlled environment. No sir, we were indeed subject to climate change. When it was cold outside it was colder inside and vice-versa. Couldn't wait for spring days to open the windows and get some fresh air, that air would get stale when we were all couped up. Could it be that is what is really the cause of all this poor air quality in our homes? Maybe if we weren't hermetically sealed from the atmosphere, it would be better. Ah, but that might cause some discomfort or inconvenience. Better to ban the stoves.

  Remember when we all had to wear our masks to save the world? There is a study that shows masks did little to prevent the spread of covid. Yes, this study is being disputed by the WHO and others because we aren't supposed to question them about anything. Other studies showed a rise in respiratory illnesses as a result of wearing those masks. Again, disputed and ignored by the WHO, for the same reason. For me just more evidence that all things in moderation is the only reasonable response. Wearing that mask twenty hours a day isn't good. Should we ban mask wearing? Look the bottom line for me is a simple one. We will get something, some illness, some disease, some infirmary at some point in our life. Fact is, we will all die. We aren't going to prevent that from happening. A little common sense and an ounce of prevention is as good as it is going get. Got methane gas (cow farts was the leading cause in California) and nitrogen oxide in the air because of your stove. Open a window! No need for government intervention.    

It happens

  They had a piece on television talking about traveling. The holiday season is approaching. Yes, it is that time again, back to school then "hallow thanks christmas year". We should all start planning for that right now. The deals are out there. The story was talking about not only domestic travel, you know, over the river to grandma's house but international travel holiday packages. A trip down the Danube on a riverboat for Christmas was featured. The narrative was how reasonable the prices were going to be this year. Oh yeah, the economy is doing great, you can afford that. 

  It's a recurring theme this home for the holiday's thing. I laugh every year about all the Hallmark movies centered on that. Family driving and flying in from all the corners of America. They all get together in the grandparents mansion, the typical American family. Generally, a romance will flourish or be revived, some deep emotional trauma will be healed. Other made for television movies center on being in foreign places for the holiday season, perhaps skiing the Alps. Money is never an issue in any of these adventures, even when the family is on the brink of bankruptcy. Yes, even when they are down to their last million, the bonds of family are stronger, and everyone is together again.

  I suppose all of that is entertaining to some, but I just find it unrealistic. It certainly wasn't that way when I was growing with my family. I didn't know anyone that was doing any of that. Heck, we had family that lived three miles down the road and we didn't see them until spring. But it is a nice fantasy I'll give it that. If only the real world worked that way. Everyone so understanding, so supportive and loving. Every transgression has been forgiven and forgotten. Well, I grew up in a family of elephants, no one ever forgets a thing! You will be reminded every time you get together. The chances increase significantly if cocktails get involved, that holiday cheer isn't always so cheerful. 

  As I listened to them talking about the holiday vacations you could book, right now, my thoughts went elsewhere. I wish I could book a trip back to 1966. That was the last year all of my family were together for Christmas. After that year one or more of us were someplace else. There was no driving or flying in for the holiday. We still had that three-bedroom house. There was my parent's room, (the master bedroom) that sounds awful pretentious, my sister's room and we three brothers shared the other. There certainly weren't accommodations for wives, cousins, grandparents and that one quirky person that isn't really a relative at all but a part of the family. 

  We have all heard it said it's a big world. That has proven to be the absolute truth. I have been fortunate enough to have traveled a great deal. It wasn't a lie, join the Navy and see the world. It's also true I saw more oceans than I did land. It was pointed out to me that the earth is about 75% water, if I wanted to see the land I should have joined the Army. I also feel lucky that there are those places that I would like to return to, special places. It's true those places only exist in my memories today, you really can't go back in time, but it is nice to dream about.

  It has been said that everything changes over time. It also takes time to fully understand just what that means. People and places. Just moments in time that can never be recaptured. It will have been fifty-eight years this Christmas since my little family gathered around the tree. A lot of changes have taken place. Of the six of us, only two remain. The house has been torn down. There are no mansions on the hill, no gathering of the clan. But there are memories. There is also the present day, the moment and we shouldn't lose sight of that. What some will call being in the moment. Ironically, I have found the best memories are of the times I wasn't aware of the moment. Not much is special when you plan it! Memories are spontaneous. They just happen. 

   

  

a commentary

  There have been many commentaries written over the years. The most famous ones being written about Socrates and the thoughts he expressed. It occurred to me that many of my blogs have become commentaries. I have taken to commenting about my own thoughts. I guess I would have to admit that is because I'm not really listening to anyone else. What I mean is, commenting on what others think. Well, the fact is I have never been much of a follower. I'm certainly not a leader either. I fall somewhere in-between. I might or might not, depends. I like to think of that as being independent. But I also realize no man is an island entire of itself. The struggle between the two challenges our sanity. Extreme emotions are the cause of insanity. Too much or too little. 

  Understanding that I believe the country as a whole is tottering on the brink of insanity. We are certainly in an emotional period in American history. With all the protests, the political climate and social upheavals that can't be ignored. It was during just such a time that the revolution and the civil war began. There are murmurs of just that once again. It isn't so much the political changes as the social ones that are causing the largest rift. The pendulum has swung both ways over the years and through each election cycle. That is expected, anticipated and complained about. Each administration making a correction. But the social changes are far more disturbing. That is why we hear about losing the nation. It is the loss of an ideal that we are talking about.

  The American Republic is that ideal. It was formed through years of conflict, composed and codified by the greatest minds the world had to offer. Idealistic, yes, they were. They had all the confidence, the hope, and the belief that they would succeed. The average age of those considered to be the founding fathers was forty-four. It was wide range however with Franklin being seventy and Thomas Jefferson thirty-three. James Monroe was eighteen and Alexander Hamilton twenty-one. Young and old united for the cause. That isn't the case today, not by a long shot. Back then the young people were picking up the torch of the "old" people, carrying their ideals forward. The opposite is true today with so many of the younger statesman attempting to dismantle, rewrite and destroy the very republic that placed them in power. There is no unified effort.

  Consider the opening lines from that most famous of documents, the Declaration of Independence. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" Notice they are talking about political bands, not social ones. It is the political bands that most affect our ability to make a living, affecting our "quality of life," a modern phrase meaning the pursuit of happiness. There were no big societal upheavals, quite the contrary. Custom and tradition were being honored not rejected. 

  Yes, there was unease with some policies regarding human rights. It's important to remember slavery was never codified in our constitution, rather left to the individual states to decide. That was done as a compromise during the constitutional convention. There were many comprises made to get that document written and signed. It took an additional five years and nine months for that document to be ratified! The federalist papers were published explaining exactly what the constitution was proposing. It wasn't just a document composed in three months and that was it. It was a document to dissolve those political bands that tied many to the wealth, the power and privilege of the British Empire. Like a child leaving home, the United States would go it alone. It became a united effort. 

  Today we are facing the social issues. That is what is causing the divide. Politics is concerned with the decisions made by a society. Attempting to define exactly what politics entails is a bit more difficult. The ancient Greks struggled with that, Aristotle and Plato lectured extensively on that subject. Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England were instrumental in forming our own concept of a republic. You can't have one without the other. Politics and societal norms are intermingled in the law. In our constitution we established a separation between church and state. The reason is obvious enough although in actual practice a bit problematic. It leads to social issues.

  Leaders, followers and independents. If asked most people will say they are independent. Independence is the ideal situation. The word itself explains that. I don't need anyone else; I can do as I please. But we know that is a fallacy, a thing of poetry as John Donne wrote. "No man is an island entire of itself." We are all a part of the whole. It is only by working together in concert that peace can be established. A common goal is necessary to the function of any government. What is the goal today? It is simply as it has always been, to live in peace, comfortably. That requires compromise and forgiveness. 

some day

  I have a Facebook acquaintance; can you be an acquaintance if you have never met in person? I don't know if that applies, and friend also seems a bit more personal than is warranted. There are folks living in the cyber world, I count myself in that number, that we really don't know all that well, we are operating on perceptions. We all realize what we see may or may not be what we get. The proof of that lies in advertising. I'd suggest each one of us are attempting to get others to "buy" whatever we are selling. It's an opportunity to present the goods. But anyway, I'm getting off track here, that often happens with me as I explore the routes less traveled. See, there I go again.

 I was thinking about this Facebook acquaintance or friend this morning. He has been diagnosed with a very serious condition. It is a condition I know very little about but have read a bit about exactly what it is. It certainly sounds like a dreadful disease and from what I understand is fatal. He is struggling with that diagnosis and is reaching out for any help he can get. I have left a few comments that sound hollow after I post them. I'm uncertain what words, if any, could provide comfort or reassurance. Perhaps those that have been trained in such would know, although I have my doubts about that. My feeling is that comfort would have to come from someone that the person knows, trusts and respects. Whatever you are told is the truth only if you believe it to be. Call me skeptical but everything I read on Facebook and social media in general, I take with a grain of salt. In today's parlance, misinformation. It's not a lie exactly, but isn't the truth either. 

  I do wish there was something I could offer to this individual beyond words. I have always said there is little that can be said that hasn't been said before. I certainly don't have any original thoughts or advice for this particular situation. The last thing I want to do is offer a bunch of platitudes, old adages and idioms. I will not preach about faith, as that is a personal choice and one the individual must adopt on their own. I have no ability to convince others of anything regarding something that personal. I will share my belief, when asked. I have used this forum to express many of my thoughts regarding all of that. None was written in an attempt to convert; it is merely to explain what I think. Facing your own mortality has to be one of the most personal things that exist. It's difficult to even think about in the abstract. It is something we all know but say, not now, not tomorrow, but someday. As Scarlett O'Hara often said, tomorrow is another day. The thought that there will be no tomorrow is unsettling to say the least. It's something we don't want to believe.

  My thought is this is a situation where the best is done by listening. The individual facing this situation has to come to peace with themself for any true peace. I think you have to forgive yourself for any transgressions you believe you may have committed. That is what is meant when you hear others saying, I have no regrets. It isn't that they haven't made mistakes, just that have forgiven themselves for that. It is the removal of blame. Sometimes there isn't anyone to blame, including yourself. 

  Twice in my life I have been in a position where I had to say goodbye to someone with a terminal illness. The first time was with my father. He was suffering from COPD and Lou Gerig's disease. I was in the Navy at that time and was given leave to see him. I sat with him and listened. When it was time for me to go all I could do was shake his hand, lean in closely and tell him I love you. Standing up straight I simply said, see you later. That communicated everything he needed to hear. You have to know your audience to be effective. I was in that spot once again with my sister. I was able to travel to Florida to be with her for a few days. We sat, we talked, we laughed, we shared our childhood secrets. Then we said goodbye. No tears, no regrets, only love. I hope I have the same strength when I am the one in that bed. But not today, not tomorrow, some day. As for my Facebook acquaintance, all I can do is pray for the same for him.  

think about it

 tps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/index.html

"Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship."  

 Critical thinking is a term I hear thrown about a great deal today. Having never attended a college or university I was unfamiliar with exactly what that is supposed to mean. As it turns out, those using it don't agree on exactly what it means. It's an educational goal but there is no consensus on what the goal is. It was adopted as an educational goal out of respect for the student's autonomy and preparing them for democratic citizenship. That line explained why so many of the Democrats think the way they do. They are exercising their autonomy! In short, you don't have to actually know the answers, or have a real solution to the problem, just how to not offend anyone else with the facts. When we can't agree on a subject, you exercise your autonomy by saying I'm not using critical thinking skills. 

 So just what are these skills I'm lacking in? I did a search and found this listing. 1) evaluate and respond to arguments. Seems I do that quite a bit, although I have to say the majority of the time, I evaluate the argument as nonsense and respond accordingly. 2) Identify biases. Well, that's easy enough, if you don't agree with me, you are biased, it's obvious enough. 3) Infer. I've always inferred whatever it is you are implying but most people deny that. 4) Research, I read things, I listen to what others are saying, and I try things, so I'm doing my research. 5) be curious. I do wonder a lot, what the heck are you thinking? 6) Judge relevance. That one surprised me as the critical thinkers are always telling me not to Judge. Guess I'll have to give that some thought. No, I won't I've already thought about it. It's all a bunch of nonsense. Judgement is at the heart of it all. 

  In my research I read where the term critical thinking was first used in 1910. John Dewey wrote a book he titled, How we think. That is where the term came from in modern times. The reality is it is nothing new. Socrates and other ancient philosophers practiced and advocated for the same thing. They called it reflective thinking. Reflective thinking entails all the same "skills" as critical thinking. When I was growing up the advice I got was, think about it. And that is all this critical thinking is, thinking about stuff. It isn't some skill you learned in college or at the university. You don't need a degree to do that, all you really need is some common sense. Think beyond what you want at the moment! Just think about it and come up with a reasonable answer, that's critical thinking.

  That's the whole issue today, coming up with a reasonable answer or response. So many have been trained to use this critical thinking "skill" that they can't arrive at a reasonable answer. That's the reason we now have multiple genders, have trouble defining what a woman is and understanding that people really resent having their traditions and beliefs mocked. Way too much reflection on the way things were a couple hundred years ago and attempting to solve the problem today. You are supposed to learn from the past, not relive it! Listen, when colleges and universities begin to teach you how to think, that isn't education, that's indoctrination! It is "critical" to getting others to follow your agenda, however. 

 "To prepare students for success in life and a democratic citizenship." An educational goal? Or is the goal, control? Think about it. Respecting the student's autonomy? Just what does that even mean. Independent and self-governing. I guess that explains a lot if you really think about it, apply those critical thinking skills. Lots of people coming up with independent definitions. So much so the experts can't even agree on what it is they are teaching. 

 Now read the first paragraph once again. What is this critical thinking? In my day it wasn't called critical thinking. I was told, just sit in that chair and think about what you have done! (reflective thinking) Later on mom or dad would come by and say, well. If I gave the correct response, the reasonable response based on reflective thought I would be free to go, if not, I was told to think some more. I wasn't aware I was exercising my autonomy though, just trying to figure out what I did wrong. Truth being, I knew that before I did whatever it is that I did.