Social sales

  It appears to me that Facebook has gone from social to sales. There is far more advertising urging you to purchase something than there is social interaction. I'm guessing folks just got tired of all the negativity, fighting and name calling. All of those hiding in their keyboard castles slinging arrows at others have finally begun to remain silent. That is the result of a lack of reaction. People have become hardened to that and are allowing it to just go by.  That's a good thing, but rather sad in a way as well. Sad that we can't interact with each other is a more civil fashion and have to resort to silence. I have noticed the proliferation of groups. The majority of these groups require you to fill out a questionnaire and electronically sign an agreement. A terms of usage agreement. Violate the rules and you will be removed and blocked from commenting. 

  I have my own group. I have had that established for quite a while now. I am the sole administrator. There are no questions to answer, no agreements to be made in order to comment or join the group. I don't have any rules. I have blocked two people since I began the group and have refused entry to a number of others. It's my group and my decision, simple as that. I don't owe an explanation to anyone. I wouldn't say that group is very active but it is cordial most of the time. I haven't seen any big issues pop up. I have no need to "moderate" anything. Well, I am the administrator, not the moderator. My group doesn't have that. 

  All things run their course. Facebook is certainly no exception to that. I have seen it change over the years. I remember when everyone was farming. That has all but disappeared from the conversation. I used to see a larger number of photos and videos. Yes, it was mostly what people were eating for dinner or something cute the kids were doing. Even that has died down somewhat. Today there is little discussion, little social interaction, mostly just somebody selling something. A lot of posts about injustices of the past and every marginalized ethnic group in the country. A lot of postings about history being wrong. A lot of apologizing for America. 

  I still scroll down my timeline or page, whatever they call that, and leave my comments. I receive lots of comments about my education, my race, my age and my overall personality. Amazing how so many people know me that much from a single post. I'm guessing those folks must be checking my profile page, something I very rarely do with anyone. I have this theory about that. I place as much trust in the validity of those profiles as I do CNN. I have thought to change mine to say I have a PhD and several other degrees. I could also "identify" as any number of ethnic groups or "communities" for that matter. Maybe the fact checkers should fact check profile pages. But they are too busy fact checking your opinion. If it doesn't agree with theirs, it's not true. The best you can hope for is "partially true" but lacking context. 

  Well in a few years, maybe sooner, we can just create a virtual presence. This AI is remarkable stuff. I can have my avatar, one that is actually me, but talks using AI. Imagine how smart I could appear to be. With the entire web at my fingertips through this AI I could cite references all day long to support whatever I wanted to. I could fact check the fact checkers! Will it be me? Without some program, some other intelligence to inform you of that, you won't know. Facebook may become the place for virtual conversations between artificial intelligence. Computers arguing with computers. My avatar can beat up your avatar. Yes, it's a brave new world. Facebook as a social network will no longer exist, it will remain as a sales network perhaps.  

      

                                                                          

Discernment

  I touched on this subject yesterday and heard some more on the news concerning that this morning. You can call it influencing, deep fakes, or outright lies but the most popular is misinformation. It is the posting of videos or other mediums that distort the truth or just outright spread a lie. The news was reporting that Governor Newsome, of California, is proposing three new bills making all of that illegal. Yes, it would be against the law to lie! Well, imagine that. His proposal would leave the telling of the truth to the government. That is exactly what it would be. The government will decide upon the truth. His bills leave that open. The government decides what is a parody, what is just making fun, and what is not. If that "fun" is aimed at your political opponent, that's illegal. It really would just be an arbitrary thing. It all depends.

  This is an attack on freedom of speech as we understand it today. The new threat being this artificial intelligence that is capable of mimicking individuals. It's true that it is getting very difficult to tell reality from fiction. That has been the objective of Hollywood for quite a while now but that's just entertainment, right? I'd suggest Hollywood has been influencing their audiences from the very beginning. Those entertainers are certainly active in influencing political debates today. How many people forget that their job, their occupation is making people believe fiction. But when they state their political position that is simply exercising their freedom of speech. That is what we are supposed to believe, take as the gospel. To even suggest otherwise is unamerican. And now Newsome is introducing legislation that would leave that assessment up to the government. This is true, this isn't true. Might even create a whole new Secretary of Truth office. A cabinet position! 

  This has been brought to the forefront as a result of videos being shown on social media sites. There are those that are parodies and those that are deep fakes. How can you tell the difference? The same way you can tell the difference when someone says to you, trust me, or the ever popular that isn't what I meant. You have to discern the truth for yourself. To discern is to judge well. Oh, but we are told not to judge. This proposal leaves all the judgement up to the government. Sounds like a political system we hear a lot about, one called socialism. The government decides what is right, what is wrong, what you can and can not have, do or say. But, it is always for your own good. The government is taking care of you.

  Yes, the government has placed some restrictions of free speech. We all know you can't holler fire in a crowded theater. You can't use your free speech to create an immediate danger to the public. It's a rather fine line but one that most understand well enough. For the most part however if someone is telling lies about you, spreading false information or disparaging you in some fashion your recourse is the court. Defamation of character has to proven to have caused damages. Those damages are almost always financial in nature. Remember Kathy Griffin? That was free speech that effectively ended her career. It wasn't the government though, it was the discernment of the people. The notion that the government can make a law to define the truth is ridiculous. 

  One of those laws The law makes it illegal to create and publish false materials related to elections 120 days before Election Day and 60 days thereafter. It also allows courts to stop the distribution of the materials, and violators could face civil penalties. The law exempts parody and satire. And yes, the government will decide what is or isn't parody or satire. Discernment is influenced by what? What is best for the individual is the short answer. If you are making fun of my Mother, that's false, if it your Mother, it's just funny. That's how that works. Expecting integrity from government? Well, use your own judgement on that.  

A constitutional right

  There has been proposals made to rejuvenate or renovate the area called the inner harbor in the city of Baltimore. This area has been the main tourist attraction in Charm city for many years. But, over the years crime has slowly crept in, businesses has moved and the area has gone into decline. So, as with everything else in the world an opportunity has presented itself to those "developers" to save the city. That's what developers do you know, they rescue local economies and provide the people with necessities such as "affordable" housing, stores and restaurants. Their plan is to revive the tourist industry and in turn save the city! 

  But, this plan has been met with some opposition. There are those that don't feel like the plan is such a great idea. Their opposition stems from the fact that it will not do a thing for the average person living in the city. Yes, the tourists may return, spend that money at the harbor and businesses will thrive once again. Thing is, the average person doesn't own that business and it will be of little help to them. You see that's the reality of tourism, the local people, those that live in the area, wind up being relegated to no more than park employees. They are only there to care for the tourists. You are there to cater to that. You are not to be seen or heard from, just do your job and entertain me. 

  In response to this opposition the developer has filed a petition to the court. This opposition, this stopping of the plan, why it's unconstitutional! That is what caught my attention this morning on the news. Yet another claim that something is unconstitutional. I'm amazed at how many people are reading the constitution these days and finding all these rights. The constitution has just 7,591 words, including the 27 amendments. Originally it was just 4,543 words. Quite brief compared to states constitutions which average 20,000 words. Still, in those few words somewhere, according to the attorney for the developer, they have a constitutional right to develop the inner harbor in the way they see fit. They are taking that to court, to the supreme court if necessary. Freedom is at stake here. 

  I haven't done an extensive research project into exactly what they are proposing. I will not attempt to make anyone believe I have done so and became some expert on that. All I have to do is read Facebook posts to get all that expertise. Facebook is flooded with constitutional scholars, attorneys and activists of all descriptions. What I do know is those developers are proposing that because they believe they will profit from doing so. And that, my friend, is the bottom line make no mistake about that. Their interest lies solely in that. That is the constitutional right they are alluding to, the pursuit of happiness. Making money, makes them happy. 

  It isn't anything new, I realize that, but today there are those reading things into that constitution that surely have nothing to do with the original intent. You know Roe V Wade wasn't a constitutional right. Yet, there are many "learned" people proclaiming that it was, and that it should be. Takes a lot of reading between the lines to come up with that one. There are those that would rewrite that document given the chance. What would be their motive to do so? Personal profit or gain of some kind is the only answer to that. You know that is why the document was written in the first place, right. It was explained with these famous lines, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure 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." There are those that find that too limiting for the modern world, those old guys just couldn't understand. I really should be allowed to build whatever I want, wherever I want. That is a right! 

  The law is built upon precedent. That is what is used when litigating cases in court. The constitution itself is the ultimate precedent. That is the reason it is so frequently cited. Precedent is the guide, it tells us what course of action was taken before. We should learn from that. Yes, it is history. There were very good reason for each of those 4,543 words in the original constitution. But then, after having made certain concessions to get that document ratified in 1788 George Washington sent twelve amendments to the individual states for ratification. As we all know, ten got ratified in 1791 and became the bill of rights. 

  Those rights were intended to protect the people, not empower the government. Why was that necessary? Because, just like today there were those saying, it doesn't say that but that is what it means. No where in the constitution did anyone have a right to hold slaves, but some said slaves were merely property. I have a constitutional right to have property. Yeah and today a development corporation is insisting they have a constitutional right to construct property. Things haven't changed nearly as much as you might think. The same reason for the precedent setting document we call the constitution exist today as they did in 1776.  

                                                                         

It isn't normal

  Are we going to say that anytime someone commits a crime that they are suffering from a mental disorder? It seems to me that is exactly what I keep hearing. The defense is always, my client has a disorder. Now if it can be established that you have a disorder you can't be held accountable for your actions. In fact, it becomes incumbent upon society to empathize, counsel and empower that individual to recovery. So is antisocial behavior a disorder? Is civil disobedience a disorder? Is every thief a kleptomaniac? Sounds silly doesn't it. Yet, that's is what I hear all the time these days and I'm expected to accept all of that. I shouldn't judge! Well, then why do we have judges at the core of the judicial system? 

  What is sanity? "the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner; sound mental health." That's what the dictionary says. So what is normal and rational? Well that has to be judged according to the society in which you are living. Who gets to judge? Those that are trained to recognize that inability to behave in a normal and rational way? Yes, that is the only thing we have. Is it a disorder when we choose to disobey civil authority? I'd say it was normal enough to do so, we have all chosen that in one way or another. Was it a rational choice? It very well could have been considering our situation or circumstance at the time. Normal is what people do and it varies by the individual. What is normal to you may not be to me. We are left with rational. What is rational?  "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." That's what the dictionary says. Who decides what is rational? Those trained to recognize that? Reasoning is certainly a very subjective thing. Logic is dependent upon reason. The reason could make a bad choice logical. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." (Star Trek) 

  Having a disorder is having a mental illness. Strangely that isn't the perception today though. You can suffer from a disorder but that doesn't mean you have a mental illness; not really. Isn't that the thinking? Yes it is just a temporary thing, not your fault and you shouldn't be held accountable for that. Well, as long as you have some outside influences you shouldn't be. Influences like drugs, alcohol, or you are feeling marginalized, neglected or being picked on. Then, it isn't your fault at all. All your bad choices were rational and logical given your circumstance. And we all know we are all victims these days. No one is free from that! If you are fortunate you are a survivor. You survived despite all the obstacles before you. Whew, it's been a battle. 

  Well the truth of the matter is this, what is normal changes with every generation. The rational choice is based upon what is normal. Our reasoning is affected by all of that. When I was a young man if I went and applied for a job with very long hair, wearing shorts and sandals with tattoos on my neck or face I couldn't reasonably expect to be hired unless it was a job in a side show. That's certainly not true today, those attributes would increase your odds today, the employer fearing litigation should they refuse. As a man if I showed up to work in a dress and heels back then it would have been perfectly normal to be fired on the spot. It would have been reasonable and rational to suggest I have a mental illness, a disorder! The "book" used by the experts back then would have confirmed that. But, we have rewritten the book on all of that. It's perfectly normal today.

  I have learned that aging is really nothing more than adjusting to the norms. It can be a very uncomfortable thing. With age comes infirmary, we all know and expect that to happen. For some it happens sooner and others much later. It is the mental acceptance of what is normal, what is rational and logical that cause the most discomfort however. There are those that don't commit to ideas, ideals or ideologies as readily as others. We sometimes call those folks, eccentric, well in the old days we did anyway. Today we call them progressives or liberals. Those folks just go with the flow, with whatever the latest trend happens to be. They will grasp the new normal readily enough and attempt to justify that. Age is just a number and normality a state. And today, in my opinion, things just aren't normal. I miss that.  

                                                                                  

Telling secrets

  A ban on freedom of speech? That seems to be what I'm hearing may occur. I confess I haven't been listening that closely but I did hear that Toc-Tok may be banned in America. All I've heard is that Tic-Tok has filed an appeal. I don't use Tic-Tok, I'm not familiar with that outlet, or social media, whatever they are calling that. It does bother me to think that our government may just decide you can't read that, use that, or have access to that. This is the land of the free the last I knew. With this they aren't talking about restricting access, they are talking about banning it altogether. That is what concerns me.

  As I said I haven't been paying close attention to Tic-Tok and what the problem is. I'll have to do some research on that. It's difficult though to get the straight of it as I really can't trust the media to report anything fairly. I have heard something about China being accused of gathering sensitive data and sharing that with the communist government of China. Without doing any research at all into that accusation all I can say is, yeah they probably are. Why wouldn't they? Seems like a no brainer.

 Thing is, they can't gather any information that isn't shared on that platform. So are they to blame? Listen, I'm not defending any Chinese communists but I will defend freedom. It was a little before my time but I remember hearing about a slogan, "loose lips, sink ships" as a method to tell people to not talk about sensitive things. I'm quite certain there were others as well. The message was plain enough, keep your mouth shut. But that was in the 1940's and communications weren't as advanced as they are today. There was radio to transmit messages secretly. Those spies had other means as well. Microfilm comes to mind. Today, all you have to do is get on social media and you can find out all kinds of stuff, secret stuff. Edward Snowden exposed the existence of global surveillance activities. I wasn't a bit surprised and all he did was confirm my suspicions. Don't misunderstand me, he is a traitor to our country, I understand he got his Soviet citizenship. 

  So I'm forced to play the devil's advocate in this situation. Whatever information China is gathering is being put there by the users of the platform. The same can be said of every social media platform or outlet of any kind. The same applies to newspapers, magazines, and the local bulletin board. Are we to ban all of those as well? It is alright to ban that platform because it is owned by the Chinese? We certainly purchase enough products from them. If we are going to say you can't "buy" Tic-Tok we would have to say, you can't buy anything Chinese. The responsibility for what is shared on that is the responsibility of the user. The outlet itself has control of that, they can block you or whatever just like Facebook does, but why would they? If you started putting money in my bank account, I'm not going to stop you. 

  The Biden administration signed a bill to ban Tic-Tok. That should be concerning to everyone. If the government is willing to ban Toc-Tok you could be next. Control of the media is essential. By controlling that, you can control the people. This from the same administration that insists every book should be in every library, available to everyone to read at any time. There should be no restrictions placed on that. Their position being, any restriction on that would effectively be a ban. You can't ban books! But you can ban Tic-Tok. So all bans aren't created equal, is that the message? I'll decide what will be banned, not you. 

  Listen up, the deal is this. The Chinese are spying on us, so are the North Koreans and every other nation in the world that has any technology capable of doing so. We, the United States of America, are doing the same thing. It has always been that way and it will continue in that fashion. The bottom line is always the same as as I have said many times, the only way to keep a secret is by not telling anyone! Most people just won't do that. Having a secret is power. Having power without the ability to exercise that power isn't very satisfying. That's why people tell secrets.

 It's not hard to understand. When your government begins to ban your freedom to speak you have started down a very slippery path. This proposal to ban Tic-Tok will not protect us from anything. Tic-Tok is only doing what every other social network is doing, gathering information. Those using it are the problem, same as always. 

 “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved,” (Benjamin Franklin) The government doesn't get to tell me what I can say. That is a personal responsibility. The government can however hold me accountable for that speech. It isn't the tobacco companies fault if I start smoking, it isn't the liquor company's fault if I drink too much, it isn't the pharmaceutical company's fault if I abuse drugs and it isn't Tic-Tok's fault if I talk too much! All of that is on me.  

                                                                      

Online

  I was riding down to my local Walmart, going down a country road, when I see this lady hanging clothes. It brought a smile to me face I was taken back in time. There was a light breeze and those clothes were waving hello. I saw sheets, tee shirts, shirts and pants. And yes, a few unmentionables were also out getting some fresh air. A long pole was propping up the line. For just a moment it was 1968.

  Today we hear the experts talking about spending quality time with our children, that activity was a portion of my quality time with mother. I wasn't aware of that at the time and neither was she. The clothes had been washed and needed to be hung out, that was the reason for that activity. Often when she had sheets to hang I was summoned to help. Two people make that chore a lot easier. I would help carry that wicker basket loaded with those clothes out to the clothes yard. The clothes yard was just a place in the backyard where, you guessed, the clothesline was. We lived on the edge of Northwest woods and the clothesline was strung between trees. We didn't have poles in the ground. A broken limb or an old piece of lumber was used for a prop stick. The clothespin were in that little cloth bag swinging from the line.

  I remember well the procedure for hanging the different pieces of clothing. Pants are hung by the waist but shirts are always hung by their tails, you don't want to put creases in the shoulders, those little peaks could be hard to iron out. It's been well over fifty years since I hung any clothes on the line but I remember. I remember doing that when it was freezing cold and you hurried because your hands were so cold. I remember doing that on hot summer days when you took your time just enjoying the breeze. It's starting to rain! You would rush out and take in those clothes as fast as possible. When I was little I would tag along with mom and she would tell me stories. Quality time of the highest quality indeed. A simple time, a simple chore and a million memories.

  I remember when Mom got a clothes dryer. It was an electric one and the latest thing. No more hanging out the clothes! Well, that didn't last long as soon as Dad got the electric bill that dryer didn't seem so great after all. Mom agreed and said she didn't like the way the clothes smelled either. Those clothes needed fresh air. And so that dryer was only used occasionally. I left for the Navy and when I returned Dad had sold our house and was moved into the new place. There was no clothesline there, just a washer and dryer. With just the two of them Mom figured it would be alright, no clothesline. I guess she got used to the smell. 

  I have never had a home of my own where I could have a clothesline. Well, that's not exactly true, I could have, but didn't. Even living here in Caroline county Maryland, a rural farming area, you don't see many clotheslines. I expect they are out there though, perhaps hidden behind those white plastic fences, six foot high that surround back yards. Not many people "airing their laundry" at all, we just didn't air our "dirty" laundry. Today all that dirty laundry is on Facebook or Tic-Tok! I'm thinking clothes lines have gone the way of front porches, just not many being used anymore. It's a shame too, we really should be using both of them a lot more. You know, it's good for the environment. I'm not talking about climate change, I'm talking about quality time and people getting along with each other. Those front porches sure were good for that. Hanging out the clothes with Mom, that was good for my environment too, even when I didn't know it. I guess you could say we were "online."  

                                                                                     

A soldiers heart

  My 2nd great grandfather was James Buckley Terry. That name has been known to me since I was very young. He was a man that had served in the civil war and was remembered for that. That became his legacy. When he was nineteen years old, in 1862 he was mustered into the 127th regiment of the New York Volunteers. He rose to the rank of corporeal while in Company G. In my research I can find where he was in no famous battles. He did spend a good portion of his time in hospital, being afflicted with the disease and sickness so associated with that time. A man small in stature and ill health. While in hospital he did learn practical nursing, something he would practice the rest of his life. I can recall seeing a black leather bag, a doctors bag, at his home and being told that had been his. I have a belt and buckle that belonged to him, worn I suspect to his meetings with the Grand Army of the Republic. It is a civil war buckle and belt, whether it was worn by him while on active duty I just don't know. 

  While going through some papers I rediscovered his obituary. It is quite a lengthy one and speaks to how much the community will miss him. It's obvious he was held in high regard. That obituary was a gold mine for researching the family tree. His children spread out across the country. His son Fred living in Florida, another son Gilbert in Oregon and Samuel living in East Hampton, Ct. He had a brother Thaddeus living in New Jersey and another named Caleb living in Colorado. There were daughters as well, Sarah who would marry and move to California. Lucy who became my great grandmother and would pass away in 1956. That obituary also told of his various occupations and residences over the years. 

  The story closes with the telling of his last years. It is here that I discovered he passed away from what was described as, a nervous breakdown. It was reported that he often over exerted himself in taking care of his fellow man. His duties as a practical nurse surely took a toll on him. I was told that he often spent days beside the bed of a patient, nursing them ,caring for them. They say he suffered his first breakdown while attending to someone. Over a period of five years his health declined, his nervous state became worse. His obituary ends with the telling of his compassion for his fellow man, how beloved he was by the community, and how much his loss will mean to everyone.

  He passed away in 1916. At that time having a nervous breakdown, or any mental health issues carried a bit of stigma. You didn't talk about that. I was surprised to see that mentioned in that obituary. But reading that I couldn't help but wonder if what he really suffered from wasn't what we call PTSD today. I can only imagine the horrors he witnessed while in that war, maybe not so much on the battlefield as in the hospital. That he became a practical nurse and continued in that profession speaks to that. It certainly seems reasonable enough to me. He lived for another fifty years after the war. He was active in the Grand Army of the Republic and attended reunions and meetings. He was active in securing benefits for the veterans of that war and their widows. How many must he have attended to over those years that had lost arms, legs, eyes and suffered horrible wounds. 

  Back in those days, during the civil war, it wasn't called PTSD or battle fatigue. Doctors knew little about any of that and simply called it, "soldiers heart" or "irritable heart"  and sometimes nostalgia, depending upon the symptoms exhibited. I suspect that he suffered from that his whole adult life. I suspect that many did and nothing was ever said about that. It was often viewed as a weakness. I'm thinking he suffered from "soldiers heart." It's a term that strikes a chord in me as it seem so appropriate. Seeing the things that he did, having lived through that hell, it surely would have an effect on your heart. So I'm saying that the civil war did cause his death. He was a casualty of that conflict. He was a soldier. 

                                                                                   

                                                          James, his wife Agnes and granddaughter, Sarah. 

Memories matured

  It is sometimes hard for me to realize that it has been 31 years since I retired from the Navy. That's an entire decade longer than I was actually in. When I began writing these posts I wanted to include my memories, it's in the title. For the most part I have found my memories are all pre 1971. That's a strange thing as that was fifty three years ago, a half a century. When I was a kid time was measured mostly in days or weeks. Remember waiting for Christmas? For me, that began a few weeks after Thanksgiving. Today I speak about decades as though they were days. I remember the 70's well enough. 

  So just when do our memories begin? How long does it take something to become a memory? More properly though is how long does it take for a memory to be old. That's really what I'm thinking about. 1993 wasn't that long ago, those memories aren't that old, except to other people that is. Einstein was correct about time being relative. It all depends upon who you are talking to, yourself, your contemporaries and peers, your children, your grandchildren or a complete stranger. The past is different for all of them. Even when they shared the same past they remember it a bit differently. 

  A bit of this came to mind as I was having a brief discussion on Facebook. There was a meme or whatever showing some sailors in their dress blues. A couple of them had three red "hash" marks. Now if you don't know what a hash mark in the Navy is, it is earned for every four years of service. If you go 12 years consecutively without having any non-judicial punishments on your record you are then entitled to wear gold stripes and hash marks. I had made a remark about those guys wearing red hash marks, saying they must be trouble makers. I figured anyone that had been in the Navy would understand and get a chuckle out of that. It wasn't intended to be a disparaging remark, an attack on our beloved veterans, some took it that however. I can only laugh.

  The conversation went on for a little bit with others weighing in on their memories of serving. I heard a few "sea stories" about those wearing red stripes, gold stripes and how they were just participation trophies. Well, I had to laugh as yes you could say if you only have red hash marks after 12 years or more they are participation trophies. You could also say if they are gold it just means you learned to pay well with others and were the teachers pet. In brief, you didn't get in trouble. I confessed that it took me 16 years to achieve that as I did hit a snag during my first enlistment. All told though I realized I was talking about things from over thirty years ago. Apparently there have been some changes made. At least some of those commenting insisting I don't know what I'm talking about. Ok, I understand that, we don't have the same memories. 

  After that discussion ended I was thinking about those years in the Navy. I had stumbled upon a few old photographs of some shipmates earlier in the day. It took some time but I did remember the names of 4 out of 5. It also took a while to recall just what ship I was on then. Luckily the name is on the ballcaps and I could zoom in to verify that. So I thought some and have come to the conclusion that my Navy days now qualify for memories. I may start to include some sea stories in these blogs as well. Tales of the old days, of how it was back in my day. And yes, I'm certain it was much tougher back then than it is today. Isn't that always the truth of it? In my time mail call was actual mail, letters written by those thinking of you and were treasured. Today I suppose you can get a text message, a video, or snapchat from anywhere in the world. I'm not sure what technology is available at sea though. Yes back in my day you were still expected to be a "sailor" and live up to that image. But that is the sea stories portion I may write about one day. 

  So how long does it take for something to become a memory? How long before it is old. How long before you can share those memories without fear of judgement? History provide us all with an excuse. That's just the way it was back in my day. I'm amused as we seem to be spending a great deal of time and energy apologizing for the past these days. All I can say is I lived and I learned. Some of the lessons have stayed with me while others have been dismissed. It's alright, it was a long time ago. I was young then, another great excuse. And the thing about all that is, when it isn't alright, I don't remember that. Yes our memories are useful things depending upon which ones you chose. The old ones are best! That is always the case. It takes years to understand and appreciate that. Ironically by the time you do, it's almost over. That's the reason for life after death, time to appreciate your memories. You really do get to build your own. 

                                                                        

Pragmatic

  Peace begins with a whisper and a battle with a shout. Today all I hear is a lot of shouting. Emotions are running high. Emotions are great motivators but seldom a good guide. We need to bring those emotions into check and all just calm down. Just as with peace, truth is told in whispers as well. It is the only way we will hear them. When we are emotional, upset about whatever, we just don't listen. Many a black eye and broken heart was caused by that. But, it is also true that emotions make the sale, and don't be deceived, it is always about the sale. Someone is always wanting you to buy something. Yes, even charity comes at a cost. The only difference being who is paying the bill.

  It is easy enough to be generous with other people's money. I can easily tell you exactly what you should spend your money on. When it comes to handling other peoples' finances I'm a genius. I've discovered it is that way with everyone else as well. I'm thinking that maybe we should all just have our paychecks deposited into an account but it is then managed by your neighbor. You know, like your parents used to do, so much in savings, so much for necessities, and a tiny bit for entertainment purposes. You don't need that hundred dollar bicycle, the fifty dollar one will work just fine. How much is enough? All depends upon whose pocketbook the money is coming out of. 

  All of that comes from the stoic school of thought. The stoics believe that virtue alone is what makes for a good life. To put it in todays terms, a virtuous life is "quality time." To practice virtue is to achieve happiness. I agree with that philosophy knowing the feeling when I do act in that manner. It is enough. Unfortunately others don't see that all the time. That's the reason we have taken to flying our virtue flags. It is difficult, I understand that, to do good without being recognized. Psychologists will talk about being validated, how you need that validation or reassurance. We all want the reward there is no denying that. In short, doing what is right even when no one is looking. 

  Today we think of a person as being stoic as one that doesn't show their emotions. That isn't what the stoic school of thought is all about however. The stoic person realizes you can not control what happens around you and is guided by reason in responding. Stoics can be just as emotional as everyone else. The stoic does strive to keep those emotions in check, to react in a reasonable fashion. When others are shouting, stoics are considering the options. It is something that has to be developed and practiced over years. Just as you train for a sport or an occupation you must practice that. Drills are often used to develop a conditioned response to a situation. That conditioned response is a reasonable reaction. Don't panic, just put out the fire.

  I'm seeing a lot of emotional responses and shouting coming from government today. Reason isn't being applied to the problems, only the expenditure of funds in an attempt to quiet the noise. Like parents spoiling their child, just give them what they ask for and they will be quiet. Is there anything reasonable about the way the immigrant crisis is being handled? No, and it isn't an immigrant issue, it's a criminal issue, but no one want to hear that. Is there anything reasonable about a government borrowing billions of dollars to give it away to other nations? Is there anything reasonable about inflation and the cost of living? No, there is nothing reasonable about any of that. It is all being caused by emotional responses to pragmatic situations. It's enough to make a stoic person scream!    

                                                                                

  

                                                                              

a fatal flaw

  The news was reporting on the revenue being generated in Maryland by the sports books. Yes, by gambling. Being a bookie is now a respectable full time occupation. You can even get a college degree in that, calling it statistics. Currently there are 23 sports booking companies operating in Maryland. The state realized a profit of 5.6 million dollars in August. The profits go into the future fund. That fund is, you guessed it, for the children, for education. I haven't read the report on the administrative costs for this program but have heard the schools can't afford air conditioning. I'm guessing 5.6 million isn't enough to even buy a few window units or whatever. Instead, they just let the kids out early. But the "future" fund is, as advertised, for the future.

  I'm just saying it strikes me funny to hear them talking about bookies and all that on the news as a positive thing. I realize this is the 21st century, it's all good dog, but I remember when bookies were  associated with criminals activities. Well, because betting on sports was illegal. Not that a great number of people weren't doing that, they were indeed, but it wasn't a source of revenue for the state. I'm guessing it was in Nevada though. Still, Nevada back in the day wasn't for everyone, until they changed it up, made it family friendly and all. The whole thing was started by who? Yeah, it was mob guy, a career criminal. When I was growing up the word on the street was the barber took bets. I can't say whether that was the truth or not but that's what I heard. I do know a lot of bald guys were in the barber shop on Saturday morning and they weren't getting a haircut. 

  Yes it's a funny thing to me as I remember when we had punch cards and thought that was risky business. New York state was the first to ban gambling in 1821. Most of that remained in effect until the 1970's. But a few shop owners always had a punch board or two under the counter. Anything from a quarter to a dollar was common enough. Yes, some were rigged but generally speaking I think the ones I knew about where at least fair, if not strictly legal. I heard about card games and such but never participated in any of that, I didn't have money to lose. Bingo at the catholic church was about it. The priest didn't draw the numbers though, I guess it was to maintain their integrity. 

  As the times change so does the morals and ethics of the society. Gambling is a moral issue. The state isn't concerned with the morality anymore, just the revenue generated. The state does include some programs to help those with a gambling problem, similar to programs to help alcoholics and drug addicts. For the gamblers the state does hire some college educated statisticians to educate you on the odds. For instance when it comes to Mega-Millions your odds are about 1 in 350 million. It's fun when you purchase that ticket for a couple bucks but when you start selling your home to buy more tickets, not such a good thing. I read where one of those statisticians explained if you were to purchase 100,000 of those tickets you would increase your overall odds of winning the grand prize by 1/10th of one percent. Your odds don't really increase by 100,000 times. 

  So gambling has gone mainstream now, a normal thing, no stigma attached to any of that. A perfectly respectable activity. It's advertised heavily on radio and television. There are catchy jingles, celebrity endorsements and incentives to participate. You can get 500 dollars in free bets when you spend five for new members. Yes, you can join, become a member of the community and enjoy all the benefits of that, just like belonging to the church or a veterans organization. Nothing wrong with gambling. That's the message. 

  It does leave us with a question however. Is it alright to sacrifice morals and ethics for a worthy cause? Should we, as a society, promote all that. It just seems a bit incongruous to me. We are removing the death penalty for criminals committing the most heinous of acts proclaiming the moral high ground. It's just not morally acceptable in a modern society. We are also insisting on a woman's right to "choose." I'm just saying, I'm seeing quite a mixed message in all of that. Blame it on my Christian upbringing if you will, but Jesus threw out the money changers from the temple. 

  The government establishes the morals and ethics of a society. It does so by codifying what activities are allowed and what are not allowed. Seems simplistic doesn't it. But that is how it works. Whether the citizens of that society comply with that is another topic of discussion altogether. Those writing our constitution where well aware of one thing, you don't have to be religious to be moral and act in an ethical way. That's the reason for the first amendment. Again, compliance by the citizens is another topic altogether. Does the decline in moral and ethical behavior reflect the decline in the society? If you trust in history, it sure does. I'd suggest the decrease in moral and ethical behavior reflects society in general. In a system where "we the people" make the laws could it be any other way? Is freedom the fatal flaw? Now there's something to think about.  

                                                                           

                                           

                                               What we teach. 

that old

  I enjoy posting those "I'm so old" observations. I'm certain you have seen them. Last night I was listening to the radio when this PSA came on; "only you can prevent wildfire's" and I immediately thought, I'm old enough to remember when Smokey said, "only you can prevent forest fires." It turns out you don't have to be that old however, that was changed in 2001. I guess I haven't been paying attention. I did look up the explanation for that and it was to clarify that fires don't just occur in forests. Wildfires can happen in other places as well and Smokey doesn't want that to happen. There are natural areas that aren't forests. Well, I'm glad Smokey figured that out. I'm not old enough to remember his original catch phrase, "Smokey says care will prevent 9 out of 10 Forest fires." That was changed in 1947.

 I know it is just a slogan and all of that, the times change and phrases along with it. Slang is what we usually are aware of. It does seem that beginning with the new millennia a lot of nomenclature is being revised. Strangely however is that we now have a problem defining what a man and a woman are. The whole sex and gender thing. But the incidence of more detailed descriptions and explanations to make absolutely sure others know what we are talking about is getting out of hand. Consider something as basic as, caution contents may be hot, they may cause burns. You are being warned that it may be hot, it might not be, but if it is hot, that could burn you. 

 A big concern today is the use of pronouns. I'm not supposed to use a pronoun based on my own observation, I have to ask what pronoun you prefer. Some folks have taken to wearing a "tag" to inform others so as not to get their feelings hurt. I remember when others were wearing safety pins as well. That was a signal to those in the know. I viewed it as a sort of secret handshake. Also women's health care has taken on a new meaning. That includes terminating a pregnancy upon demand. It is called choice. The father doesn't get a choice though, he just has no say in that. Well, unless the baby is born then he is responsible for the next 18 years or so. No choice about that either.

  I'm just amused by all of this. Consider Smokey. He's a bear. Bears live in the woods (forests) and he warns that only you can prevent forest fires. What is that bear saying? There are natural causes for a forest fire, like lightening, but you can prevent a fire by being careful. Now I guess Smokey has moved to other natural areas and is worried you will set them on fire. Well, he does have reason to think that way. I'm old enough to remember when an application was something you filled out for a job. Today there is an app for that! An app to fill out the app. I'm old enough to remember when kids were more afraid of their parents than they were the police. Remember when we were taught that the Police were our friends? Yes, we were told to go to them anytime we needed help. Yeah, I'm that old. 

                                                                                   

influential

  I read an article about a man that just can't find a job. That is what he says anyway, despite having an MBA. He claims to have applied to over 1500 employers. The article doesn't go in to a lot of detail regarding this MBA, exactly what courses of instruction he has completed. I did google that and a broad range of subjects was offered. One of the subjects is called emotional intelligence. Curious as to what that might be I googled some more. "Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to understand and manage your own emotions, as well as understand and influence the emotions of others." I thought isn't that what we learned in grade school? Seems to me the first lesson was in kindergarten. Sit still, be quiet and listen to the teacher. If you didn't you learned that she got upset! That would result in your emotions being influenced by her, usually with a paddle. The result being you learned to manage your emotions. There were even circumstances where you could influence hers. For most of us that lasted until we got to out teenage years when we began thinking, I know it all. That was called acting up and it did draw an emotional response once again. 

  I do find it amusing. I'm putting on my job application I passed a course in emotional intelligence but I don't understand why that didn't influence you to hire me. I'm thinking that guy needs to go back to class. Probably should start back at the elementary level. I mean you have a college education but can't manage to get a job? Strange, I don't have a degree of any sort and have always been able to find a job. Now it's true I never expected my employer to agree to my terms, I always agreed to theirs. I'm reading where I've been doing that all wrong all these years. I should have been making demands. 

  Well maybe I was lacking emotional intelligence but I had common sense. I always knew the employer was only hiring me when it was to their advantage to do so. I just had to convince them I had some skill or knowledge that they needed. My needs weren't quite as important to them. I had to manage my emotions in some interviews. I remember working for Lowe's home improvement store, in the electrical department. There did come a day when I didn't manage my emotions and quit. I had another job within a week. 

  The article I read was mostly about this guy complaining how much education he has and how much in debt he is. He was complaining that his degree was worthless. It was worthless because it hadn't given him everything that was promised by those selling the product. He has an MBA and should start, at a minimum, in upper management. A department head or something similar. With all his education he doesn't need experience, that's what college gets you. Actually working, starting in a lesser position is for the uneducated masses, not a man with an MBA. Yes, college was a waste of time. Now he can't even manage his emotional responses or influence anyone. Probably should have taken more classes in emotional intelligence. 

  I don't know it just amuses me. While I was in the Navy I had to attend classes in leadership. I always found them fun. The objective behind those courses was to get others to follow your orders. Yes, it was supposed to be psychology. Leadership by not threatening your subordinates. Well I discovered that will work with some, but everyone reacts a bit differently. I wasn't told about emotional intelligence back then. I did learn one thing however, most people are motivated by a promise of reward. Deterrence was accomplished by the removal of privilege, freedom of movement or the loss of money. Yes, that is what would happen if you didn't manage your emotional intelligence  to comply with the terms of employment. 

  The bottom line for me is I'd tell that guy to get a job. McDonalds is always hiring and they are looking for management candidates. In Maryland the average salary for a McDonalds manager is a bit over 50,000. That's almost 25 dollars an hour. That guy didn't say how much he was getting for not having a job but I'm thinking it isn't 50 grand a year. The Biden administration is claiming they are creating 100's of thousands of jobs every month. But he just can't get a job. I should pay his student loan for him because his degree is worthless. That's what he says. Well all I can tell you is I'm not buying anything that is worthless, no not paying for that. Perhaps it isn't that the degree is worthless, perhaps it is you. I wonder if you ever considered that. Maybe you need to manage and understand your own emotions before trying to influence others. 

Making the sale

  Another moment in American political history. A judge has decided that trump will not be sentenced until after the general election. Now, I've read where a blogger is supposed to be an expert in whatever field they are writing about. I'll just say it right now, I'm no expert on anything except my own memories and opinions. Ironically, I have found they are both subject to change. But I will go out on a limb here and say never before has that happened. This judge said he would postpose sentencing to avoid any appearance of election interference. That leaves me with a question though. If Trump where to receive a jail sentence, as president, would he serve wearing an ankle bracelet? That's assuming he wins the general election of course. It's an interesting time in political history for this nation. Depending upon your personal view of things we have a felon running for president and there is nothing in the law that says he can't. Conversely there is no law saying you have to show identification to vote for him or anyone else. 

  The media has consistently referred to Trumps' legal issue as the "hush" money trial. What is actually involved was a non-disclosure agreement. But, as with many things these days the pundits change the terms to suit their narratives and agendas'. That's how we wound up with assault rifles and gender fluidity. Trumps' legal issues really involved the payments and taxes involved with that non-disclosure agreement. It is rarely mentioned that Stormy Daniels argued the non disclosure agreement wasn't valid because Trump never signed it. I have to question if he never signed it as she claims, how can he be held accountable for that agreement? Well, the truth is, he isn't. He is being blamed for the actions of his attorneys. But whatever the case is, it is a historic moment in American political history. It amounts to a "legal" assassination. His crime is in knowing what was going on. I'm not arguing whether he did or didn't know. I'm just saying it wasn't "hush" money, it was a non-disclosure agreement.

  Another moment in American political history would have to be the 12th amendment. Prior to that we voted for president and vice president individually. It has proven effective in eliminating most ties and deadlocks in those elections since. It was a big shift in philosophy. The founding fathers, those that wrote the original constitution expected the people to vote for the best qualified candidate for the office regardless of their political party. In short, they believed in integrity. Unfortunately that proved to be a bit of a mistake. Turned out people will vote based on a variety of other factors. As a result there were conflicts and deadlocks. It's really complicated. 

  An example of the president and vice president not on the same "page" would be Lincoln and his vice president Andrew Johnson. Lincoln was, of course, the first Republican president. It was called the National Union Party at that time however. As I said, I'm no expert on any of this. But after Lincoln was assassinated Andrew Johnson took office. He was a southern sympathizer, a member of the Democratic party. He immediately reversed a great deal of the orders Lincoln had issued. Most notably however was his rescinding of Special Field Order #15. It was that order by General Sherman that was to grant no more than forty acres of land to some freed slaves. This land was to come from those large plantations in the south. Johnson rescinded the order and returned those plantations to their original owners, the very people that had stared the rebellion in the first place! Imagine if Lincolns' vice president hadn't done that. Yes, a pivotal decision in American politics for certain. Oh, by the way, Johnson was eventually impeached! 

  Lots of political history being made. Consider Biden dropping out of the race. Harris becomes the democratic nominee without ever having participated in a primary election. We the people had no say in that nomination. The democratic party leadership just decided that for you. That's a first. Trump has been convicted of a felony whether you believe it is just or not. The fact remains, he has been convicted of a felony. He is still running for president. I don't believe that has ever happened before. No matter which side of the aisle you are standing on, this election will be a historic one. Historic for the first and historic for what is being lost as well. 

 The loss of election integrity is what I'm thinking about. How much faith do you place in that? Yes, it is a big loss and a disappointment. The presidential candidate can still select anyone they want to be their running mate. They can pick whoever they want without regard to political party. Things is, the party leadership has to approve that. They did that with Lincoln as a compromise. Slavery was the hot button issue and the republicans figured having Johnson on the ticket would help win the election. It worked like a charm and they won by a landslide. Then Lincoln was assassinated and Johnson took office. It has been considered but has never happened since. You just can't trust those opposite to you. Yes, it is disappointing when you can't count on people to act with "your" idea of integrity. The backstabbers. 

  I remember a song by the group the O'Jays with just that title. The backstabbers. 

"All the time they want to take your place

The back stabbers (back stabbers)
(They smilin' in your face)
All the time, they want to take your place
The back stabbers (back stabbers)"  

Credit goes to the songwriters.  Gene McFadden / John Whitehead / Leon Huff

Well politics is a rough world. Biden was stabbed in the back, Trump is being stabbed in the back. But saddest of all is we the people, we are being stabbed in the back by a main stream media that is only concerned with sales, not with integrity. 

Consider this. In the majority of cases a convicted felon can not vote. A convicted felon however may run for the office of President. He just can't vote for himself. All that is necessary is for you to buy it. 

it ain't over

  I keep hearing all these stories about people that were margainlized, cheated, discriminated against, suffered heartache and depression and managed to be survivors. They feel entitled to something, although I'm not sure what. But it seems to be a common theme. Well, now I feel cheated. None of that ever happened to me. I'm even told that isn't so when I try to tell others that. It's like it is the expected thing. I'm not wearing any ribbons, flying any flags or displaying certain colors. I just don't have any besides the American flag and some ribbons I was awarded while in the Navy. Looks pretty silly wearing them on civilian clothes, although I've heard where it is common enough for a British person to wear their military medals on their civilian clothes.

  The truth is I grew up in a family. Mom, Dad, two brothers and one sister. None of those had special needs, none of those ever did anything exceptional. No, just your standard run of the mill family. We weren't poor, we weren't rich. I suppose we would be called middle class but it would have been on the lower end of that spectrum according to the government. We had sickness, disappointments and misfortunes. We got by. That's what we called that, getting by, it wasn't being a survivor. You had to be in some very serious situation before you qualified for that desigination. It usually involved the loss of some body part or greivous injury. In fact almost everything that happened to us we would shrug off by saying, I'll survive.

 Well the truth is when I was growing up we were taught to not complain about everything. No need to cry over spilt milk was a common saying. The other side of that was, if something bad happened to you, you didn't talk about that. That was doubly true if you were the one that caused the bad thing to happen. You didn't want anyone else to know about that if possible. Life isn't all that hard unless you want to make it that way. You just have to start out relizing it isn't about you. Understand that and the rest gets a lot easier. The only people that can make it about you are; other people. That's how that works. Then you need to understand lesson two, failing isn't success. Sucess is sucess. You aren't always going to be sucessful. The objective is always to have others believe this is your first try at it. I'm not telling you I failed the test three times before and now I've passed. Nope, the only thing you will hear is, I passed the test. 

  Listening to all of this, almost daily, is causing me to feel cheated somehow. I deserve so much more! Now there's a phrase I hear frequently and it has become a pet peeve of mine. All the ads, especially the lawyers, saying you deserve this or that. You deserve to have the same things as everyone else. The truth is, you have to earn everything and anything you want in this life. After you have earned that, you deserve to get that. The thing is, you have to earn it! You are entitled to just three things, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The rest of it is up to you. You are responsible for you. Quit blaming everyone else for your choices. Whatever happened in the past, happened in the past. Learn from that and leave it there. It's the only way things change. Keep using the past to build today, and you will wind up with the past. Past failures were just that, failures. 

  All I'm saying is, I'm not a survivor. I will say, I've managed to get by. I'll take credit for having navigated this far without the need to be a survivor. A great deal of that I owe to plain old good luck. You really can't control everything. What others choose to do will affect you that's inevitable. That will not change to suit you. I'll also take credit for having learned from past mistakes, past failures. A few times I learned that wasn't the way to go, and so changed course. I wasn't always happy about that, but realized the necessity of doing so. I wasn't a victim of anything but my own choices. As I heard often enough growing up, "you made your bed, now lie in it." Yes, sometimes that was very uncomforatble. My only recourse was to change the sheets. But I grew up with the knowledge that no matter what happens, I'll get by. Seventy one years, I'm still here, still getting by. You see I figure it this way. Survivors figure it is over, victims figure it isn't their fault. It isn't over. And yes sometimes we are victims, it happens, and it will happen again. As I said, it ain't over. 

                                                                          

 

                                                Stay the course is my advice. 

Confusion

  I was talking with a family member and bragging that I was to become a great grandfather in January. I was asked if I knew the gender . Yes, I do, it is a girl. I added, we even have a picture of her. That got me to thinking how much things have changed since I was born just a little over sevnty one years ago. Man, that sounds like a long time when you write it down, not that long when you are living it though. But when I was born there were no pictures and I was a surprise. Well, my gender was anyway but determined at birth by the doctor. That may or may not be the case today. The AMA is recommending that no gender be recorded on the birth certificate. Even when it is, that information isn't public anymore. And, not only that, you can change it. Yes, it's a different world.

  I do remember when I was young and the ladies were expecting, as was the common term in those days saying pregnant out loud wasn't socially acceptable, the speculation was about the gender. We just said boy or girl back then too. We knew it would be one of the other. There were various methods to determine that involving wedding rings, tea leaves, or how the belly looked. Are you carrying high or low? I mean there was no doubt you were pregnant, the rabbit died! That was the test used up until the early part of the 1960's. The rabbit however never told the gender. There were no pictures. Although ultra sound imaging had been used as early as 1956 it wasn't commn until the 1970's. That technology is still being used and the pictures aren't all that much better. 

  There has been an image circulating on Facebook that shows a baby at twenty weeks. That picture was taken with an endoscopic camera. Back in 1965 a Swedish photographer named Nilson did a series of photographs of babies in the womb tracking the development. Life magazine published them and it was a sensational thing. I read where it was one of the most popular editions ever printed. Those pictures were cystal clear in color and in black and white. For me it leaves no doubt that it is indeed a human being in that embrotic sac. It's an interesting read about the photographer and his reaction to those pictures. I'll include the link for those interested at the bottom of the page. Those pictures are getting the same reaction today as they did in in 1965. 

  I do chuckle when I think about all of that. When I was in elementary school most of that was still a mystery to me. Babies involved cabbage patches and storks. I think it was the sixth grade when the school held individual assemblies for the boys and girls to explain the truth of the matter. I remember my father having to go with me. It surely was an aackward time for everyone. You didn't talk about that stuff! But I don't think there was nearly as much confusion back then as there appears to be today. I don't remember anyone saying they identified as anything but what they actually were. No boys being girls, no girls being boys, and no cats or other animals. No, things were pretty clear back then. 

 Yes everyone knew there were those that really liked the same sex more than they should but no one was saying you had to agree with that. It was just a private thing, the only ones needing to know, already knew. I'm just saying it wasn't an advertising campaign. And yes when others "found out" they would often use that as an excuse to hurt those people. It was the same as using your race, your parents financial status, the color of your hair, your weight or height. It was the same as if you were really smart or really dumb. Yes, people, especially children, will use anthing they can to make themselves feel superior to others. There has always been the Alpha male thing and the submissive female thing. Societal expectations. None of that has changed. Tolerance and acceptance really are differnt things altogether.

   I'm not going to get into the whole thing about abortions and when life begins. I've made that clear enough in a number of these blogs. I'm just saying how much has changed over the years. Today we know almost immediately when a woman becomes preganant. You can buy the test at dollar general! No rabbits were killed in determing your pregnancy. Using imaging we can tell the gender of that baby but it may or may not be recorded on the birth certificate. Some states allow the desigination of neutral (X) on your birth certificate. I'm thinking that may cause some confusion for geneaologists in the future. It just seems to me the more we know the more confusing things are getting. Well, that's progress I suppose. 

 https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/nov/18/foetus-images-lennart-nilsson-photojournalist

                                           One of those images at 11 weeks  
   

Without morality

  Teaching history. It's something we hear a great deal about these days. It just seems like the focus on our history has changed somewhat since I was in school. I'm being told how I was misled, and the facts weren't all what I was told. The whole educational system was discriminatory, biased, and only for white people. Well, it was white people that established this nation for the most part. Those people were teaching about history from their point of view. Was it some insidious plan, a deliberate attempt to write history in favor of the white guys? As I said, the white guys established the country so yeah, they wanted to tell the story the way they saw that. I'm not really surprised by any of that. When I write about my life, my history, I do the same thing. My parents, my siblings and my friends may have a different history to tell. 

  What is the purpose of teaching history? History is there for us to learn from is a popular adage. For many people that means it is there for us to change. The thought being, we did that, and this was the result so now we need to do something different. Einstein is credited with saying "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The truth is there is no evidence, no proof that he ever said that. Millions of people have repeated that without ever having fact checked it. History has lied to us all. We should have learned from that, but we haven't, we keep repeating history. That sure sounds familiar, doesn't it? History repeats itself. It's one of those things you can't refute even when it is uncomfortable. The reason history repeats itself is because people haven't changed all that much in 300,000 years as far as our motivations. 

  What motivated the American revolution. I was taught about the injustices imposed upon the people by the crown. I was told about taxation without representation is tyranny. I read about the stamp act, the tax on tea and British oppression. I wasn't told it was because the rich guys in America were having their businesses hurt by all of that. No, I was only told about the injustice of it all. It wasn't injustice that started the revolution however, it was money. The ones organizing that weren't the working class, they were the upper class. The ones with the money, influence and education. Same thing applies today although us peasants can make our voices heard a lot easier today, not that it changes much. Well until a revolution occurs anyway. 

  The thing with history is, we should learn from it, but we are studying the wrong thing. We should learn what motivates people to act in the way they do and change the way we react to those motivations. But that, that is purpose of religion, to fundamentally change our interaction with other people. To treat others as we want to be treated. That isn't what motivates us however, we want others to react the way we want them to. That is the purpose of politics, to manipulate opinions. Our founding fathers attempted to change the political system with the establishment of this Constitutional Republic. It wasn't the first in history contrary to what you may have been told. 

       “There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.” –(John Quincy Adams) 

  Government establishes the morality of a nation. In our Constitutional Republic the first amendment prohibits the government from the establishment of religion. What were the writers of that legislation thinking about? They were thinking about how "religions" had been used to control citizens in the past. They were thinking about how in the words of Epictetus "All religions must be tolerated for every man must get to heaven in his own way" The objective still being, to get to heaven. It's clear that the founding fathers were well aware of the influence of government and civil law on the actions and reactions of man. There were also aware that you cannot legislate morality. It is the absence of morality that will destroy a nation. Without morality virtue cannot exist. 

  That the big deception today is that you can be virtuous without any moral guidance. Moral guidance is the purpose of all religious practices. No one religion is superior to all others, there is no set rule. That is why the first amendment was written. The first amendment doesn't prohibit religion, it endorses all religions.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other  (John Adams) That is the lesson we should be learning from history, all history. In our Constitutional Republic it was decided that the morality of the nation would be left up to the people. That's the big experiment. Will it work? Well, if history is a guide the odds aren't in our favor. That is if we continue to think of our government as a Democracy. It isn't. Learn that lesson from history and we just might stand a chance. Remember this is what John Quincy Adams had to say,  “There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments." Our constitution is only adequate to a moral and religious people. You do have to have morality before the religious part of that equation.   

Treating the cure

  Addiction recovery services were being featured on the news this morning. The goal is to remove the stigma of having this problem. The focus was on those that self-medicate, as they were calling that. I guess that is what we are going to call abuse now, self-medicating. It's not really your fault, you just lack the proper training to administer that medication. You certainly shouldn't have any fingers pointed at you for that. The truth is, you should be given support and training, taught how to properly administer those medications. That's the stigma we need to change, taking medications shouldn't be discouraged in any way, they should be supported.

  I understand all of that. How else can you justify the widespread prescribing of medications for mental health. The array of drugs for that purpose is staggering. It is also becoming a far more common thing than at any time in history. Mood altering drugs are the most common. I read where they are classified into three types. I'm not a doctor and so don't really understand a lot about that but they are supposed to control your mood. I'm thinking it's the same thing as, steadying my nerves, a shot of liquor does the same thing unless you overmedicate yourself that is. Did you know that was possible during prohibition? You could get a prescription for alcohol during that time in America. It was prescribed for cancer, indigestion and depression. Today we just self-medicate with alcohol, no prescription needed. Some states are now allowing marijuana for the same reason, self-medication. 

  So, if we are going to say that if you self-medicate and get an addiction that isn't your fault, shouldn't it be the doctor's fault if I get addicted to a prescription medication? I mean they are the ones with the training and knowledge. I shouldn't get an addiction from that. If I take more than is prescribed, over medicate myself, that is their fault too. I can't see where that is any different from a gun manufacturer. If I take the gun and shoot someone with it that's their fault, right. Many people are saying just that, the gun is being violent. It's not the fault of the user, it's the fault of the gun. The manufacturer of that gun should be held responsible. It really is the same logic.

  This is a paragraph for the Mayo Clinic on mental health. "Cultural norms and social expectations also play a role in defining mental health disorders. There is no standard measure across cultures to determine whether a behavior is normal or when it becomes disruptive. What might be normal in one society may be a cause for concern in another" The bottom line is really we don't have a standard; we rewrite that book every few years or so. In fact, there are several books. How do you measure "social expectations" in a person? Well, currently the only way we have is to take a test and have that evaluated by a mental health expert. A great deal depends upon which expert you are talking to. All doctors, nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants can prescribe mood altering drugs. All that is necessary is for you to have the correct answers to the test. 

  We hear a lot of complaints about big pharma. What is the biggest complaint? The cost of those medications. It's a valid point when considering lifesaving medications like insulin. I'm certain there are a good number of medications that are a necessity. Big pharma we call it. Are they to blame for the drug crisis in America? They are the ones selling the product, aren't they? Just like the gun manufacturers. These products are probably the most widely advertised products in America. You can't turn on the television without hearing a song, a jingle, a testimonial or an endorsement for some drug. You are implored to ask your physician about; fill in the blank. The message is clear, if you aren't living your life to the "fullest" you need some drug to correct that. Name the issue, we have the treatment. No promises of a cure, just a treatment. 

  But don't worry if you get addicted recovery services are available. Some states have included that with their legalization of marijuana usage. A certain percentage of the profits go into a special fund for addiction services. Strangely however no state has ever earmarked any profits from alcohol sales for addiction recovery services. No, that's on you has been the mindset. Mood altering drugs whether prescribed or self-administered however are a different thing altogether. Not your fault and no stigma should be attached to any of that. In fact, you should be applauded for recognizing your problem. Once recovered you can serve as an example to others. You can recover from addiction! After all, it wasn't your fault. It wasn't the fault of the prescriber unless he/she prescribed too much. The court will decide on that though, not the doctors. 

 Your mental health was determined by a professional and medications deemed necessary. Then because of your mental health condition you over medicate yourself and become addicted. The doctor wasn't at fault, and neither are you. Only one left to blame is the manufacturer. But you decided to self-medicate.  That's not your fault, you didn't have any other choice. You become addicted. Again, not your fault. You should be given services. The only one to blame is the drug dealer in the alley. If they weren't selling that stuff, you couldn't buy it. Just like if they can't sell a gun, you can't shoot anyone. It's not your fault. 

  Look I'm not saying you shouldn't be given help when you ask for it. I'm not saying you shouldn't be forgiven. What I am saying is, it is your fault. You are the one that made the decision to self-medicate. It is a reflection of you. Recovery without personal accountability never works. Recovery without the realization that you are responsible for your choices will never work. Yes, there should be a stigma associated with that. That stigma should remain visible to you! Recovery occurs when others don't see that stigma. It may take years but that is what recovery really is. Self-realization and taking personal accountability for your choices. Only you can do that. 

  Using mood altering drugs as a cure. It isn't going to work. The best you can hope for is a stabilization. What you have to guard against is having to treat the cure! That's what recovery is all about. Treating the cure.  

  Mental health: What's normal, what's not - Mayo Clinic   Included for those demanding I show my sources.