Wednesday, April 30, 2025

the will of the people

  The pendulum has begun to swing back to the right. It reached far left with the Drag Queens in the library and Pride Flags in the classrooms across America. It reached far left when illegal aliens began being called undocumented migrants. It went very far left when doctors started prescribing hormone altering drugs to children as young as five. When we were told that open borders is a wonderful thing and dependence on foreign oil and manufacturing was essential, the pendulum was far to the left. When we are told "life" is a choice that pendulum was going hard left. But thankfully, it has begun its' journey to the right once again. 
  That being said I would caution everyone to not allow that pendulum to swing too far to the right. We mustn't over compensate for what has happened in the past. That is the hardest lesson to learn of all. Following the civil war what was the reaction? An overcompensation with those "carpetbaggers" heading into the southern lands to take advantage of business opportunities. There were those on the Yankee side more than willing to take advantage and deprive anyone associated with the current rebellion. The southern leaders that continued exercising any power or influence instituted what became to be known as the Jim Crowe laws. They were attempting to maintain their "status quo" before their failed rebellion. That overcompensation continued virtually unchecked for a hundred years until 1964 with the passage of the civil rights act and in 1965 with the voting rights act. 
  Whereas I fully support the immediate deportation of anyone crossing the border illegally, we do have to ensure that they are illegal. I understand the challenges faced in determining an individuals "genuine" status. When the left began allowing people to identify in any way they chose and insist I just go along with that, it certainly increased the difficulty level considerably. When the left insists I should be allowed to bring "emotional" support animals on airplanes it became more difficult to "judge" the mental state of an individual. In fact the left insists I shouldn't make any judgement at all! Now, that's an overcompensation. 
 The sonnet written on a plague on the statue of Liberty is not the official state policy of the United States of America! Each and every person that wishes to come to America, to become a citizen of this great nation, should be fully vetted medically, physically and financially. My own Grandmother, who came from Sweden, was subjected to that at Ellis Island. Her Uncle met her there, she underwent a physical exam, was found in be 'healthy" and had 15 dollars in cash with her. Her Uncle, then a citizen of this country vouched for her and she had housing and a job waiting for her. That's how it should be today! 
 The pendulum needs to swing back to where the majority rules, not the minority or "marginalized" folks in this world. Yeah, it stinks when you are one of those, but it is what it is,. I'm not super wealthy and that isn't fair. I like liver and onions for supper but the majority wants a steak. I should just eat the steak;  the steak people don't have to provide liver for me. Polls show that 80 to 90% of the population identify as straight. That's why we shouldn't have pride flags in the schools. Majority rules and straight folks don't have a flag for that, you know why? Because it is the majority of the people, that's why. Flags were originally used in warfare. Their purpose being to identify the combatants. You don't want to kill the guys in your army so you need a method to identify them. By flying that Flag you are identifying yourself. If you're flying the liver flag in a steak house don't be surprised if you are attacked! 
 I hope I'm not around to see it but I firmly believe there will be a time when it gets too extreme to the right. History supports that theory. At that time the pendulum will begin a return to the left. The objective is to achieve an equilibrium. And just like any pendulum it requires a gentle push from an outside force to maintain. When that force is removed, the pendulum stops entirely. When the force is too great, damage is the likely result. That force, is the will of the people.  

                                                                           

    

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

A survivor

  My son recently acquired a new home. This property included a workshop. Now my son isn't the workshop kind of guy. I have taken possession of that shop. He, of course, can make repair requests through the proper channels, my wife must approve the project first, and I will take care of those things on his "to do" list placed there by his wife. I've been rather busy getting my shop together over the last few weeks now that the weather has warmed up. There is no heat out there, although I was using a portable propane heater to take off the chill. But electricity is available and lighting is sufficient. All in all the best shop I have owned.
 I began the process of moving all my tools, equipment and supplies from my attic to that shop. It is a slow process and requires sorting things out. It would appear that I have quite a bit more than what is actually required but there is no such thing as too many tools. I have rediscovered a few I had forgotten about not having a need for them. Still you never know when you might need a chain breaker or that back up belt sander. I do have a few tools that belonged to my father, the original do it yourself guy. With the exception of electronics there wasn't much he couldn't do, and do on a professional level. He worked in all the trades at one time or another and I remember that well. Dad passed thirty five years ago and so those remaining tools are getting scarce. 
 I learned a lot by watching him over the years and asking questions. He wasn't one to teach others much, he had little patience for that. He just figured most of what he knew was common sense. I can't say how many times I heard him say, any damn fool would know that. He simply assumed you already knew. I wish now that I had spent more time working with him on his various projects, he always had  something in the works. Mom would always complain that he didn't finish anything, there was always that last piece of trim to install or some other little detail. 
 Dad never had a real workshop. He did most of his work in the garage when he had one, in the basement sometimes and on a table out in the yard. But thinking about it, his projects were almost always on a bigger scale than the average home workshop would have been able to handle anyway. When he built, he built on a grand scale. His last project was a boat. You see, he had done a lot of work for this man, a chiropractor, and the man never paid him. Well, that same man had this small four cylinder marine diesel engine and dad took possession of that in lieu of payment. So naturally he needed a boat to go around it. He started building one. Sadly it was never finished as his health declined. Last I heard of that boat it was being used as a piece of playground equipment for the Methodist church. 
 When I was small I would often play with his folding ruler. That was something he usually had with him in a pocket on the side of his pants. Dad didn't wear coveralls like the carpenters you see on television. He did have that pocket for that ruler though. I liked taking it out and unfolding it, seeing how long it was while holding onto one end. It would bend, as you can imagine, and stress those folding joints. Then Dad would yell at me to stop that! You're going to snap that ruler in half, what's the matter with you! That was before he had any tape measures like we know today. I played with them too and got yelled at for that. 
 While sorting and moving my tools to the work shop I came across Dads ruler, the wooden one. Thoughts of him flooded my mind. It is one of those things that when you hold it you are taken back. I could hear his voice telling me that it isn't a toy! I could only imagine what he may have measured with that ruler, what construction relied on that tool. Although I don't recall him ever saying so, I heard a voice saying, measure twice, cut once. That's some very old advice from anyone building anything, that common sense Dad figured everyone had. I picked that ruler up yesterday and decided it should have a special place of its' own in the shop. It has earned that honor. It's a survivor! So I made a "frame" to hold it and mounted it next to a sign I had made earlier. A sign that says, Measure Twice, Cut Once" It's on a rafter above my table saw. 

                                                                          





                                                 You never know what will survive. 

Monday, April 28, 2025

an inner instinct

  I have met a few old classmates while on Facebook, those that I knew in school but never really knew all that much. I'm sure you know what I mean. We all travel in our own little circles. When we are children those circles form, although we do have a tendency to more readily accept others into that circle, that changes as we grow older. We all become a bit more, say we say, selective in our relationships. Something that is in the headlines quite a bit these days with all this talk of inclusivity. Now, as adults some have decided that exercising discretion is somehow a fault. And that is what I call that when I choose to disassociate myself from others. Discretion is the better part of valor, and life needn't be a battle.
 Today we are seeing the political divide as the greatest influencer when it comes to being "friends." I suppose that has always been true although we were quite unaware of that when we were kids. It was our parents that exerted the most influence back then, warning us to avoid certain individuals that were nothing but trouble. In many cases that advice was based solely on our parents impression of the other parents. The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. As small children we begin to gain an understanding of our position in this world. That position is based upon our parents. Professionals, white collar workers, blue collar workers, and those on the fringes. 
 As we grow we are attracted to others for a variety of reasons. The guys tend to gather in groups that share a like interest and abilities. I'm certain the girls are doing the same. Then hormones enter the picture and the attraction becomes more physical than mental. Interestingly, that is also the time your parents will start warning you about those that are a bad influence. Those are always the kids that seem like the most fun to be around. Pushing those proverbial boundaries, stepping out of line is an exciting prospect. It's a time when we are most concerned with risk and reward. 
 There are those, especially in school, that we never really approach. Either we are not interested in them or we feel like the risk isn't worth the reward. I would like to ride on that motorcycle, but I was told not to, the risk of being caught outweighing that urge to climb aboard. I would like to take that girl out on a date but I'm certain I would be rejected, just don't ask and you won't be disappointed. It's all risk and reward. It is strange how many years later, years where you haven't seen or had any interaction with those folks, you connect again but with a feeling like you know them. It's almost the same as associating yourself with some celebrity, it somehow makes you a better person for it. At least it does to others that do not know that "celebrity" or in this case, a classmate.
 I'm sure I'm not unique in this feeling. How many of us grow up and move away? The ones that stayed are admired for that, even when we don't admit that out loud. Many times I wish I had stayed the course, stayed in my hometown, raised a family and gained that status. That wasn't to be my lot in life, I made different choices. Oh I could go on and on about why, but the bottom line is, that is what I did. I don't regret it but probably would do it differently given the chance. Well, that's only if I knew the outcome before the act was done, without that, I would do it exactly the same way. And that is the fantasy of yesterday. The what if. 
  What I was thinking about this morning before I began writing this little essay was old classmates. As I said I have met a few here on Facebook that I never really knew very well. Those I didn't hang out with or have very much interaction with beyond the class. It wasn't that I didn't like them, it was just we never made a connection. You can't dislike someone you don't know. And something else I have learned is that you don't have to dislike someone, to not become their friend. There does seem to be some inner instinct that guides us in that regard. I say that now because there have been a few classmates I have met on Facebook that didn't know me then, came to know me a little bit on Facebook, and decided they just don't like me. Well, perhaps don't like me is a bit overstated, they just choose to not hang out with me. Nothing much has changed in over fifty years. We are in the same class, but in a different place. Well all I can say is your parents probably warned you about kids like me, it's your own fault. 

                                                                                       


                                                                                 

Sunday, April 27, 2025

Regarding science

  I have made several posts/remarks regarding trusting the science. It is the current narrative from the left as they attempt to remove all moral belief from the social consciousness. With science nothing is ever wrong, just a failed experiment. That's the reason science changes as often as it does. Of course, it's called advances in science. Same thinking as an undocumented immigrant. Just renaming an action to make it more palatable to the masses. That isn't to say that our lives haven't been improved through science, I'd have to be a complete fool to believe otherwise, but science cannot replace faith. Faith is the promise of a good result following death, something that science has no knowledge of whatsoever, a complete unknown state of being. The stuff of science fiction. Except it is not, not to those that have faith it isn't. 
 Science, as I see it, has only managed to imitate or recreate what has already existed in the natural world. More often than not, that imitation or recreation turns out to be inferior to the original. Science labels them as side effects or adverse drug reactions. Science is concerned with discovery, not explanations. Consider the topic of human birth and development. Man has discovered all the necessary ingredients for that to happen. Man has even made that happen in a petri dish/test tube. Well, sorta. Still requires a female womb and that fertilized egg. Science can't create either of those things. No imitation or substitution for any of that. Man has discovered all sorts of thing that we still have no explanation for. We can't explain the universe as one example. An endless void, filled with planets, stars, dust, whatever and we have no idea about any of that. How did it get there? If it is there what is outside of it? Ah, nothing there is no end. 
  Okay then, you don't really understand how that works at all, your understanding is the same as mine. Only difference being, I make no claim to being able to explain any of that. The big bang? Where did that initial mass come from and why did it explode? No one knows that. Is the splitting of an atom a recreation of that? Maybe, I don't know I'm not a scientist, but where did the atom come from? How did it wind up in the center of this endless, ever expanding universe? How can there be a center if there are no boundaries? Yeah, we don't know that either. 
 So far science tells us that everything was already there. No explaining how it got there or where it came from, just some ideas that it "evolved" over time. The building blocks of the universe is a term I've heard many times over the years. As man discovered the various elements and processes involved in creating matter that is what they are called. Still no explaining where the blocks came from in the first place. More than 4600 years ago man knew how the pyramids were built, but science can't explain that today. Some scientists insist it had to be extraterrestrial beings, a lost technology or other theories. No explaining that though. We didn't invent electricity, it has existed since the earth was formed. We just learned to manipulate it. Same with medical advances, we are learning to manipulate those processes that create life. So far, the results have had mixed results. We have managed to create some pretty amazing technologies.
  I'm not anti science. I'm not attempting to prove or disprove any scientific discoveries or achievements. All I'm saying is, science can't explain everything, in fact, science explains nothing. Being able to recreate or imitate isn't explaining anything. Like a small child that will just keep asking why, sometimes there simply isn't an explanation. There are times when you just have to have faith. Science can't replace faith. The dismissal of faith is possibly the most arrogant action of man. By that dismissal placing themselves above all else, above that which we don't understand. Death isn't the end of life, of that I am quite certain. It is only the end of the "machine" that carries an energy. Energy can not be destroyed. It is only transformed. Infinite. Explain infinity. I'll wait for science to explain that before placing all my trust in that. In the meantime I go forward on faith. 

                                                                               

Saturday, April 26, 2025

Too much

  I see lots of posts about the super wealthy people of the world. I hear the cries that they have too much money, they don't need all that and they should have to share. The wealthy people are controlling the wealth. Yeah, well that has always been the case throughout the history of man. Wealth doesn't have to be in dollars and cents, it can be anything at all that is in demand. Food, housing and protection are the top three needs. Control those, you are now controlling the wealth. 
 The wealthiest people in the world don't have the most cash on hand. They have "credit" upon demand. That is because they have assets such as property, buildings, or a product to sell. Their wealth is based upon the potential value of those items. No different really than you or I, our wealth dependent upon what others are willing to pay. It's really as simple as that. How much do you want or need? They really are quite different, wants and needs. Those decrying excessive wealth just want that wealth for themselves, to satisfy their wants, not necessarily a need. 
  Personally I wouldn't object to Elon Musk or anyone else giving me an endowment of several million or so. I would definitely feel super wealthy. Wealth is an objective thing when it comes right down to it. For me wealth is when you have enough and maybe just a bit to spare. Did these super wealthy people set out to get wealthy? No, I don't believe that is their prime objective, their wealth just came as a result of their wants. They all wanted to do something, build an automobile, bake a cake, run a business of some type, whatever it is. We call them successful when they make that money, we are providing that money, then some believe they should have to share that success. You want wealth, make it yourself. This idea that you can somehow legislate charity is just ridiculous. Charity isn't an entitlement, it is charity! The super wealthy people got super wealthy because you bought the product!
  Could the super wealthy people afford to give more away? Sure they could. Could you afford to give more of your money away? I'm betting you could if you wanted too. How much are you allowed to have as a safety net, in savings or in potential wealth? Should you really own three cars when one will do? Do you really need that rv, camper or vacation home? You know there are those that don't have any home at all, seems quite selfish for you to have those. Are you dining out, going to the club and buying the latest fashions? There are those that are hungry, you shouldn't be doing that and the clothing from Walmart is good enough, give that savings away to the charity of your choice. 
  The thing is those complaining about the super wealthy are only complaining that they aren't being given that money. It's wealth envy, that's all it is. No different than being envious of those that are better looking or more talented than yourself. I like to write, but I'm not insisting some famous author share his work with me, allowing me to take the credit for that. George Jones has 80 studio albums, 132 compilation albums, three live albums, ten video albums and seven box sets! No one needs that many, I should be given some of those! 
 You know why he has that many? You bought them. If you have a problem with the super wealthy you only have yourself to blame. You make them wealthy with your willingness to buy the product. That's how that works. Yeah, sometimes it just stinks being you doesn't it. I should be wealthy too, but I'm not. But you can change that, send me money! Surely you have some to spare, some you just don't need at all. I will allow you to unburden yourself of the guilt of holding excessive wealth. I'm willing to assume that mantle. When I have too much, I'll just give the excess away. I'll let you know what that happens. 

                                                                                     

        

Friday, April 25, 2025

another milestone

  In a milestone event for my grandson, he has been published in the Maryland Law Review. This publication from the University of Maryland is quite prestigious. It is something those involved with the law would recognize and appreciate. It certainly isn't for the layman. I was reading his article and admit to struggling with some of the terms and explanations offered. All the citations are there in the footnotes and it would take many hours for me to read those. I was impressed, I can't deny that. He is sounding like a lawyer, no doubt. I did attempt to read the entire document but it turned out to be a bit much for this old mind. I will read more of it at a later date.
 I haven't had the chance to talk to my grandson about this paper at any length. I believe I got the main point. It seems like he is saying that the victim and the criminal should be on equal footing in every case. He was discussing the case of Syad V Lee. A case in the news here in Maryland. As with all these things that case has been an ongoing thing, appeal after appeal filed, and all without a satisfactory outcome, that's my opinion on that, not my grandsons. My grandson explaining all the procedural steps that should be followed. It falls in line with what the Democrats are now saying about "due process" in this Garcia case being litigated in the court of public opinion. The big argument being about whether the "victim" in this case, Garcia, received every protection afforded by the law. But like I said, I haven't discussed any of that with my grandson, so it's just my thoughts.
  Regardless of what his review says or doesn't say I am swelling with pride at his accomplishment. Not only was his work accepted and published by this prestigious magazine but he wrote it while attending school in the evenings, working in the day, and now raising a small child. All of that without any "special programs" to make it possible. It was accomplished through his own work ethic, determination and drive. Did I mention he is also a "licensed" referee for soccer and officiates college level soccer matches on the weekends. I won't pretend to fully understand all that document has to say, it's a technical document for lawyers in my opinion. It concerns the engineering of a judicial system. I just try to operate within those confines, not understanding the entire mechanism. 
 For me, the law is an attempt to remove all emotion from the litigation of a case. Lady liberty is blindfolded and holding the scales of justice. As Joe Friday of Dragnet fame said, "just the facts, maam." In that scenario the victim and the accused are on equal footing. Is that possible? I mean is it truly possible to have a judge or jury completely unbiased in their opinions? I don't believe that is possible. We are all human beings subject to emotional response, even when we don't show them. I'm saying you can never really know the heart of another person. 
 The job of a lawyer is to convince you that whatever side of the issue he/she is defending, is the only correct response. Guilty or not guilty. Or, barring that, you are just a little bit guilty. Then you may be just a bit guilty but some technical issue happened so it should be retried. Perhaps a different result could be achieved. That's why it is called an appeal. An appeal to procedure, or is it an appeal to an emotion? In Syad's case, he is still guilty of first degree murder, robbery, kidnapping and false imprisonment. He is currently free, however. There are some technical issues to be resolved. He committed those crimes in 1999. Here we are 26 years later still discussing all of that. Procedure or emotion? I'll be interested in what my grandson has to say about that when I get the chance to talk with him. I have to say I agree with his premise that both victim and accused should be on equal footing, I believe that is the intent of the law. Still, it is had to reconcile that with my emotional response. He's still guilty, regardless of any technical procedure overlooked. 
  Should I ever require a lawyer to defend me, I'm thinking Mark would be the one I would call. I have no doubt that everything would be done to the proverbial "letter of the law" as Mark is that sort of man. There are no short cuts with him, no bending of the rules. He will stand his ground, steadfast under all conditions. I first saw that when he became a referee. As a teenager he stood on the field, as adults confronted his decisions, sometimes inches from his face hurling insults, and calmly explained the rule. When some persisted he stopped the game, asked the person to leave the facility and informed everyone the game would not continue until that happened. Yes, it happened, the person was ejected and the game resumed. That's the rule! Perry Mason and Matlock would both be proud. I know I am.    

                                                                          
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol84/iss3/5

This is the link to Mark Reicharts' paper should you like to read through it. 

Thursday, April 24, 2025

Due process

  It's all about due process. That is what I'm hearing from the Democrats. This is, of course, in relation to Kilmar Garcia and his deportation. The storyline is, he was abducted by ICE and whisked off to El Salvador. An innocent "Maryland Man" taken from his family. And , it could happen to you! Yes, it could happen if you are an illegal alien in my country, had your hearing were immigration judges determined you should be deported but issued a temporary protective status, which is no longer valid and are a gang banger or an associate of a gang banger. Yes, then ICE just might come after you.
 Kilmar Garcia has had his due process, on more than one occasion as a matter of fact. It is that due process that supports the statement that he has no criminal record. He was detained, on more than one occasion but received due process of the law and was released. It doesn't indicate he is innocent, just that he wasn't prosecuted. HIs wife admitted that he had abused her on more than one occasion, that's a crime. He entered the country illegally fourteen years ago, that's a crime. They are the simple facts. And all of his legal defense, his due process was paid for by you, the taxpayer.
 He was shielded from being deported to El Salvador because his claim was local gangs were threatening him. He was about 15 years old at that time. So why would a gang be threatening a 15 year old kid? Well, they may be attempting to get you to join them, or not tell on them, that's reasonable to assume but at 15 would you then flee to America, a journey of over 1600 miles. Yeah, that sounds reasonable enough doesn't it? Where do you think the funds for such a journey came from? Did his Mom and Dad finance that or did some gang? Could be he simply stole some money from that gang and traveled to America entering illegally. It all sounds quite suspect to me. But at any rate, the gang he was worried about no longer exists in El Salvador, the threat is gone. Well, maybe not in their prisons were the gang members are but karma has a way of catching up with us all. 
 But the left has grabbed onto this with the ferocity of a pit bull. Why do think that would be? The answer is obvious enough, votes. The democrats figure there is an awful lot to be gained in this demand for "due process." Remember the democrats are the ones pushing for non-citizens to gain the right to vote in our elections. In fact, that has even been allowed in some local elections, something that should outrage every American citizen. The fear mongering left telling you, it could be you! No, it isn't going to be you if you are a legal resident of the United States, which Kilmar Garcia is not. He was not denied due process at any time. That's the bottom line. Due process isn't a guarantee of the result you want. That's not how it works at all. You don't get a do-over every time due process returns a negative result. He has had his day in court, several times in fact, and the result of that due process was deportation. 
 So the Democrats are not trying to "defend the man" as that is their official position on this, but protecting your right to due process. That leaves my head spinning. The Democrats are demanding a sovereign nation return their citizen to our nation to face due process. That due process will be an immigration hearing where it is already known he is an illegal alien in this country. The only result will be he will be deported! So, the Democrats want that man returned here, from his home, to be deported to another country that isn't his home. 
 That's the due process they are advocating for. Sure he was, or is, a member of MS-13 a terrorist organization, that's not so important as due process. It was determined by experts that he is indeed a member of that gang. But proof must be presented! Just because experts said so, just because he has tattoos and is known to wear gang related "uniforms" is no reason to believe he is a gang member. He needs to admit that himself. That's the only acceptable proof. For the Democrats due process means everyone that enters the country illegally should be given the right to vote! It's their version of " no one left behind." It's sickening. 

                                                                                 

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

the hypocrisy of the left

  Heard on the news that Harvard is suing the Trump administration over the threat of their loss of government endowments. First, to be clear, the Trump administration is the federal government and that is your money, not Trumps or Harvard's. So what Harvard is attempting to do is to sue you for charity. That's the whole deal in a nutshell. All endowments are charitable donations to institutions or individuals, that is simply what they are. It doesn't matter how long you have been receiving that endowment, it doesn't matter how large or small the endowment is, it is still a charitable donation.
  I'm not surprised by that at all however. The liberals in this country have made it clear enough, they deserve everything and anything they desire. Well entitlement doesn't include charity! That's just the truth of the matter. There is no legal mandate, no law or regulation that requires the government to give you anything that you are not entitled to. There is no "charity" law. That is the purpose of the "tax exemption." That authority can be found in the tax code, section 501(c) (3) to be precise about that. It isn't in the constitution, the bill of rights or anywhere else, it is part of the tax code. 
  Congress oversees and funds all federal endowments, although the complexity of that would require a great deal more education than I currently have, or intend to get. I already know enough about that to understand one thing, it's my money being given away. I hear the cries, it's not an endowment, it's a grant. True enough, that is what Harvard is suing about, a federal grant totaling 2.2 billion dollars of your money. An endowment or a grant, both are charity. Both are regulated by congress. And who is congress? We the people are congress by our representatives. So the liberals are suing the conservatives over that money. Daddy wont give me money,  I'll sue him for it. I don't think he has a good enough reason to deny me. Sure my brother and sisters might have to go without, but I'll get what I want and that is all that matters. 
  Harvard has an endowment fund exceeding 50 billion dollars. Yet their claim is that they have been funding nearly 2/3 of their operating expenses from federal research grants and student tuition. Well, that would explain why you have an endowment fund worth over 50 billion dollars! If you don't spend it, you have it. Don't need a degree from Harvard to understand that at all. The question to be asked is who benefits from that 50 billion dollar endowment fund? Somebody certainly is I have no doubt about that. The operating expense for Harvard last year was 6.4 billion dollars. Over 1/3 of that is for salaries and wages! Half of that 6.4 billion dollars came from philanthropy. Yes, charity but they want 2.2 billion more from you! I find it very strange that those liberal folks running Harvard, aren't "spreading the wealth." What's up with that? Isn't that what they are all about. DEI and spreading the wealth. And if you don't donate, I'll sue you for the money. Very progressive indeed. 

                                                                          

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

A sign

  The Pope has passed away. Soon the cardinals will convene and decide upon a successor. It's a large political decision to be made. Have no illusion to the contrary, this is a political decision. I do not mean that in any negative way, just as a statement of the truth of the matter. The power of the Pope is no joke, as there are an estimated 1.4 billion people identifying themselves as Catholics. The wealth of the Catholic church isn't really known, but it is estimated to be in the tens of billions. The Pope is a global force, even has his own city-state, the Vatican.
  I really have no idea how those cardinals go about deciding on that appointment. The Pope can be chosen from any baptized catholic male. Historically however they have been chosen from the college of cardinals. The pope chooses who will be a cardinal. So now you can see where the political aspect in all of this may originate. Imagine if a president got to choose those that get to vote and that remained in effect after his death. That's pretty much how this election of the new pope happens. The official narrative is that God will guide the cardinals in their votes. Surely these men of God will choose the correct man for the job of leading the church into the future. The reality being, they have to choose who is going to be best for business. 
 There have been some that are known for being "reformer" popes. Pope Francis was one of them. He is touted for his work recognizing past scandals, embracing marginalized groups, and inclusivity. Does that sound like the current political climate? It wasn't by accident, it was by vote. The first Pope from the Americas and a Jesuits. I have read a bit about that but won't pretend to understand the difference between a Jesuit and a Catholic. I read where all Jesuits are Catholic but not all Catholics are Jesuits. I wonder if that makes any difference in the big picture. The reformer Popes upset the proverbial applecart. They are often thought of as bringing the church in line with modern times, even when the modern times where in 1500's. It was always what was best for business in my opinion.
 The selection of a new Pope happens more frequently than most of us realize. Since 1900 the average length of time for the Pope has been twelve years. That isn't even one generation. Perhaps not being a Catholic I'm not paying attention that closely but I thought that time would have been longer. Yesterday I was writing about rules and rituals. The pope establishes both for the catholic church. The rules may change rather quickly but the rituals take a bit longer. The protestant reformation took place in the mid 1500's as the rules change, rituals were questioned, the authority of the pope was also questioned. That lead to the formation of the protestants, those separating themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. The core belief remains, only rules and rituals changed. Was Pope Francis elected to be Pope to institute the changes he did? Will his successor be elected to continue down that path, the path of the reformer, or will he be elected to stop, or even reverse the direction the church is taking?
 For me it is all just a matter of political intrigue and history. The pope condemned the Templar Knights at the behest of the king of France. The reason was money. Those Templars had amassed tremendous wealth and power and were backed by papal authority. France owed the Templars a lot of money and no way to pay it back. A deal was struck. France had its' debt erased, the church gained a good deal of wealth. The catholic church's' influence in the election of president Kennedy is still debated. Kennedy himself declared I am not the Catholic candidate for president, I am the democratic parties candidate for president. It was a bias that had to be overcome. How many voted for Kennedy because he was a catholic? The same question as how many voted for Obama because he was black? How many voted for Harris because she was a woman? How many elected officials are in office, voted in because of their religion or culture? 
 How will the college of cardinals decide upon the next Pope? Will he be chosen for his divinity, his piety and faith? Or will he be chosen to satisfy an agenda. His job is to lead the catholic church. It will be a man as the rules don't allow women to be cardinals, yet. That rule would need to be changed. Whoever is elected next could accomplish that. I've read where that has been discussed, seriously contemplated. The real question in all of that is, are Roman Catholics ready for that? You have to be very careful not to alienate your congregation, that's very bad for business. That's what started that reformation back in the 1500's. I doubt any of that will affect me in any meaningful way. For me, the Pope is just the CEO of the Catholic church. He's a man like all others. And that doesn't change what I believe in any manner whatsoever. I'll just wait for the "smoke" signal. Black means no decision, white means he have a new Pope. 

                                                                                         

Chimney of the Sistine chapel. 
                                                                                

Monday, April 21, 2025

Rules and Rituals

  All things change in time. There is no denying that. That is what causes the angst in aging. We get the feeling that things are going the wrong way, in a new direction, and it isn't going to be good. After all, the past is what got us to where we are. If you are happy with where you are, you wouldn't want to change any of that, in fact, you attempt to share that with your children and grandchildren. That is the position I find myself in. I can't speak for others that may not be as content in their lives as I am. Yes, change sometimes bothers me, sometimes causing a sense of dread, a fear for the future. It's a future I won't share, we are all mortal after all, but my grandchildren will be there, and great grandchildren as well. That's the future I fear.
 In this modern digital world we can experience all sorts of things, live, as they are taking place even though we are miles or even continents away from that event. It is that ability that contributes to this feeling of angst experienced by us senior people. But what I discovered was this digital world also facilitates a sort of time travel. You can be taken back to those places of your youth, instantly and in living color. That happened to me yesterday as I was scrolling Facebook. There it was, a live stream from St. Luke's Episcopal Church in East Hampton, New York. The very church I was baptized in, received my first communion, sang in the jr. choir and served as an acolyte throughout my high school years. I last attended services there in about 1973 or so. The reverend Samuel Davis was the rector. 
 Things had changed, drastically in my view. The altar was in a different location. The Reverend was in robes more reminiscent of  Catholic priests I had seen and it all seemed a bit foreign. My first thought was, St. Like's has gone Catholic! The service being conducted was different, mostly the same words, the same lesson plan, but somehow different, more formal in nature than I remembered. All of that from a video that isn't really a video at all, it was happening live as I watched from my desktop. How strange that seems to me. It's like attending church in your pajamas! Gives me the feeling of being a sort of peeping Tom, looking in on someone without their knowledge or permission. It's a new world for certain. 
  I realized that what I was seeing was the past changed. The familiar becoming the strange. Had I remained a member of that church congregation the changes would have been gradual, perhaps even gone unnoticed. Many times we are excited about the new, embrace that readily and indeed, look for ways to create it. The truth being, we just want to change the past that we may not be completely satisfied with. A relaxing of the rules so to speak, even when that imposes additional rules upon us. But in this case not so much rules, as rituals. 
  Do the rules establish the ritual? On the surface of things that would appear to be the case. Rituals are used to reenforce the rules, that's my thinking on that. Ritual creates that "birds of a feather" atmosphere, that feeling of belonging that humans crave. The scientists calling that being a "social" animal. We are indeed social animals, those that avoid society being given various labels, recluse, eccentric or anti-social. Hermits are notorious for their lack of interaction with others.
  As I watched the rituals being performed in that church service, in a building quite familiar to me, I saw no one I knew. I didn't know the Priest, and he was a Priest not a minister or the the Reverend, that is Samuel Davis, I didn't know any of the congregants, although I admit I didn't see many in that live stream. Communion was being offered but it wasn't being done in the proper way, it wasn't following the ritual as I had been taught. I found it unsettling and I turned away. At first I had a feeling close to anger, I was upset. Then the feeling became one of a begrudged acceptance. There was nothing wrong with what they were doing, it's just that they were doing that in a different way, in my church. 
  After thinking about this for some time, analyzing my emotions so to speak, I put my finger on it. The ritual I had witnessed wasn't familiar to me. That was it in a nutshell. I felt like an outsider, that feeling enhanced by the fact I was "looking" in from afar. It's a rather surreal experience. The past is there, but hidden from view. The ritual I had witnessed seemed a bit more formal, a bit more stylized than I recall.    I was not a part of that congregation, not a participant in any way, just an observer. There was no one to see my reactions, to see if I was engaged with the "ritual" of worship. The bottom line being, no one to observe the piety of my worship, and isn't that why I attended those ritual services in the first place? It was important that others see me there. Never wanting to admit to that I would deny that with the argument that God is everywhere, and the church is just a building.  
  I think that used to be the case societally, the importance of that attendance losing its' value over the years. It's a change. All things change over time. With this particular societal change I believe we have seen an increase in crime, violence, and an altered sense of morality? Attending those services served as a reminder of our vulnerability. We are all mortal beings, and will face a final reckoning. More importantly however those services instructed us. They served as a reminder of the rules. Rules that some would label dogma. Dogma are the rules of a religious belief. That is what it means today, in the modern world. Like all things that has changed over time. The original meaning from the "Greek" was something that seems true. As I said, that has changed. Currently the change being the removal of dogma altogether. Everything must be proven, no belief allowed. The doubting Thomas's of the world having their day in court.
  It could be said that our Constitution is the dogma of America. The Declaration of Independence stated, "we hold these truths to be self evident" a statement of dogma, no proof required. The Constitution being the rule book. The ritual of government procedure altering that document over the years. Should the rules create the ritual, or the ritual follow the rules? Ritual should reenforce the rules is my thought. But, you shouldn't change the rules to accommodate a ritual. Rituals are created through culture, tradition and what the people need. We all need to believe in something! Ritual and religion establish what that something is. Seeing all that change, that is what causes the angst of aging. When your beliefs are challenged that is what will happen. 
 Even Democrats have good thoughts once in a while. FDR said this, "We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon." The importance of belief can not be overstated. Question the rules, not the dogma. The rules may change but dogma remains the same. You don't change your beliefs, you change your understanding of the rules.  

                                                                               

 

Sunday, April 20, 2025

The three b's

  Bunnies, baskets and buns. The three b's of Easter. I have two of the three with me this morning. A chocolate bunny my wife purchased for me, it's Russel Stover, top shelf stuff. The baskets I have were also made by my wife, crocheted. If you know anyone that crochets or knits you understand, everything can and will be crocheted or knitted eventually. What I don't have are buns. Not that kind of bun, I'm thinking about a hot cross bun. It is something I had almost forgotten about entirely. My granddaughter works part time at a bakery while she is attending radiology school. My son tells me Easter is the busiest day of the year for that bakery and I asked if they were selling hot cross buns. Funny how something like that can just pop into your head. I don't have any particular memory of eating hot cross buns, my mother making them or anything like that. I had a vague memory of some nursery rhyme about them, that was all. 
  Now hot cross buns were on my mind and so to the internet I went. Inquiring minds want to know. And I admit it is far easier than a trip to the library and searching that card catalogue. There were many subjects I left unexplored because I was too lazy to go to the library. But anyway, I googled hot cross buns and became informed about them. A spiced bun eaten on Good Friday it was a staple in many countries for that occasion. It held meaning too, the cross is obvious enough, the spices remind us of the spices used to embalm Jesus and the orange peel the bitterness of his time on the cross. I confess I don't recall every seeing a hot cross bun with orange icing, just the sugar kind. I wasn't aware of the significance of those ingredients. Then I went to check out the nursery rhyme. Hot Cross Buns, one a penny, two a penny, hot cross buns. Buy one for your daughter, buy one for your son, one a penny, two a penny, Hot Cross buns. 
  I'm not sure why this vague memory of hot cross buns grabbed my attention. Perhaps it is just an old memory, something comforting to think about. It does take me back to the day. As a child I do remember my mom teaching me how to draw a bunny rabbit and dying eggs together. I recall going to church and we all got to wear our new church clothes on Easter Sunday. There was Easter dinner, a ham was the usual fare. Never could figure out what a pig had to do with Easter. But then there were rabbits delivering eggs, jelly beans and chocolate in a basket so it was best not to question some things. The Easter ham was usually covered with pineapple rings, a cherry in the center and those crazy little clove things. Yes, I bit into one of those once and tasted the bitterness! 
  I admit I don't get out much, I'm not involved in many social circles, and I haven't heard any mention of hot cross buns. I was wondering if that was still a thing in American culture. You don't hear Peters' name a lot anymore, now he's just, the rabbit. Is Peter Cottontail still hopping down the bunny trail, hippity, hoppity?  Well it has been 65 years since Roy Rogers released that song so I expect Peter is tired by now. Not having any very young children around in quite some time I'm not up on whatever nursery rhymes are current. I'm aware that some have been phased out entirely so as not to trigger the children, give them nightmares or ptsd. I was just wondering though, does anyone else remember hot cross buns? 
 Happy Easter to all that celebrate and I wish you all happy memories of the day. 

                                                                                         

Saturday, April 19, 2025

know your role

  Why are the democrats and the media so focused on an illegal alien deported to his homeland? Why are they giving that hours of news coverage? Why did a Maryland senator fly to El Salvador in a "supposed" attempt to bring him home? Well, the truth is written on the wall if you just calm down enough to read it. In the first place this man isn't a citizen of the United States. No, his citizenship is in El Salvador, that's why he was deported to his home. Yes, that is home to him, just because he was living illegally in America for a number of years doesn't change that one basic fact. Carry on all you want about that, make every excuse, every argument you like, but the fact remains, he is an illegal alien. 
 Why are the democrats so concerned? Votes. That's it in a single word. Let's examine the truth about the democrats and their support for voters. It was the democrats that insisted black people should only count as 3/5 of a person. That was a compromise they made during the constitutional convention. The southern slave owners wanted "everyone" counted as it would directly determine the number of seats in the house of representatives. 
 Not that everyone would be allowed to vote, you understand, just count towards securing a seat. The basic premise being, I could just buy some extra seats in the house. As with most things it is far more complex than that, but that is the gest of the deal. Then following the southern loss in the civil war and their "slaves" becoming freemen a means to retain control of the labor pool was required. Well, the sharecropper plan worked like a charm. The whole "company" store thing came into practice. The only sticking point was in 1869 those people got the right to vote. Every effort was made to prevent that from happening, that's a fact, but it was still a very troubling thing. In the end the decision was made to simply provide "full support" for the black man. That support consisted of limiting education, limiting property rights and providing "assistance" in exchange for one thing. The thing was; vote for the democrats. It worked great too, still does in some instances.
 Now today we are trying to secure the vote of those "migrants" yearning to be free in our nation. They cross the border "undocumented" and are given safe haven. The democrats are now saying they haven't broken any laws, well duh, crossing the border illegally is a crime! But even more important than one illegal alien deported to his home country is the optics of this. The democrats will stand in solidarity with him to prove their loyalty, their care, trust and understanding. All that is required in return will be your vote. Don't worry the democrats are the champions of social programs, social justice and the erasure of inequality! Well, as long as you vote for them that is. And that is what this is all about, have no illusions otherwise. It's the same playbook that has been in use since 1865! 
 Remember, no one is above the law as long as they vote democratic! The biggest problem the democrats have is when their voters lose their dependence. Oh, they are all for people being independent, as long as the independence depends upon them. No thinking for your own allowed! The democratic party is the party of dependence. That is their means of control. Thou shalt not act independently of the party platform! Know your place! Spare the rod and spoil the child! The democrats have no rod at all, it's all about the spoiling part. You need this, I have this, and you can only get it by obedience. Vote for me or else! Hey, the republicans are enforcing the law, cutting the free stuff and treating everyone as an equal. Can't have that because you know you deserve more. Know your role! Do as you are told, no questions asked.  

                                                                                      

Friday, April 18, 2025

exempt?

  Hearing some discussion about tax exempt status for certain businesses and religious organizations. Should any of these receive this status? Well, the thing is this, our nation was founded upon Christian traditions. That is to say, the majority of the population held a belief in a higher power than themselves, a divine creator. It's true that not everyone agreed on the extent of the creators powers, the ability or willingness to intervene in the matters of mankind. Not everyone could agree upon the manner in which worship was to be conducted. And not everyone could agree on the exact meaning and interpretation of the many editions of the Bible, either old or new testament. Still, none of that negated the belief in that power/entity.
  Ok, so how does that effect tax status? It's really quite easy to understand. The thinking is that the buildings used, the Pastors, Priests, Reverends and Ministers should receive that status in conjunction with their work. The church buildings shouldn't be taxed, that would then place a burden on the collection plate, ie: it would be akin to charging admission as a set amount would have to be raised to pay that tax. The building was raised by private funds donated by the congregants, they shouldn't have to then pay any land/ building tax. Charity should be tax free! That is the long and short of that mindset. I shouldn't be taxed for being charitable. That is also the thought behind tax exempt status for any charitable organization. The rules have been written, rewritten, and expanded over the years. The number of such organizations operating today are too numerous for me to even count. I could obtain a PhD in attempting to do that.
 Are we to remove that premise from the national conscience? Charity should be taxed the same way "sin" taxes are applied to alcohol, tobacco and gambling. Are we going to say both actions are exactly the same? That it just doesn't make any difference what the intent is. I've heard many say the church should lose their tax exempt status. I haven't heard those same people saying they should lose their tax deductions when contributing to a charitable organization. No, they should get a reduction in their taxes, it's for charity. Yes, that is the premise isn't it? 
 I did do a bit of research regarding tax exempt organizations. According to the tax foundation.org website  The tax-exempt nonprofit economy now comprises 15 percent of GDP, spans more than 1.8 million organizations, and manages over $8 trillion in assets. What happens if we remove all tax exemptions from these organizations? Will that 8 trillion in assets somehow become public properties/assets? What happens to 15% of our gross domestic profit? Currently that figure is 5 Trillion, 550 billion dollars. 15% of total market value isn't something to sneeze at! The big question is, would all those 1.8 million organizations continue to operate and provide that 15% to the GDP? I'm no economist but I highly doubt that would be the case. 
 Regardless of any of that, the bottom line in my thinking is as I said earlier; Charity should be tax free. You don't look a gift horse in the mouth is an old adage, although not directly related to the imposition of taxes, the sentiment is the same. My Bible says this: 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. That's why you don't tax that. Charity for you, but not for me? 

                                                                                 

Thursday, April 17, 2025

the cost of admission

  Here in Maryland there has been an ongoing issue with the Catholic church and some government run schools regarding child sexual abuse. I'm sure you have all heard about this stuff and it's disgusting. A few years back a settlement was reached between the Church and the state regarding the claims filed. There is no statute of limitations on that. It was decided that no matter how long ago that abuse took place the person was entitled to file and receive damages. Limits were placed on the amount of monetary compensation that could be imposed on the Church and on the state itself. In the most recent budget for the state a bill reduced the amount the state would have to pay. I believe the amount is now 400,000 dollars if it is a state agency or school found guilty of that abuse.
 Now there is this advocate on television decrying this change to the agreement. His argument is what troubles me. He says, saving souls is far more important than saving the almighty dollar. Whereas one can't argue with that logic on the surface of things, yes souls are priceless, but can you buy one? And that is the issue I'm having with that argument. Will the amount of monetary compensation you receive for abuse alter that abuse in any fashion? Will a larger amount just make the memories of that disappear or become less traumatic? I want to know just how money is going to save a soul? You know when you put your contribution in the collection plate it isn't to buy your soul or pay off God for your sins. That's what I was always told anyway.
 I am not in any way trying to devalue the effects of being sexually abused as a child by what should be trusted members of the clergy or government employees in the prisons or other state sponsored programs. In my mind the punishment for those found guilty of such would extend far beyond anything money could buy. It's true that in a great number of these cases the one that committed these atrocities are long gone, dead. So, that only leaves monetary compensation as a means to acknowledge that abuse. But will that money save your soul? My question to that individual would be, what makes you believe my soul needs saving? Is it my fault I was abused, my choice and therefore I corrupted my soul? You only need saving if you have sinned! 
 Okay so we all agree that these people should receive some monetary compensation for the abuse they endured, they are survivors. The problem then becomes how to set that value. Is there some chart to reference in that regard? If this happened you get this, if that happened you get more. How long did this go on? There are just too many factors to even attempt to consider any of that. How is the amount even determined by a jury? We're not talking about a parking ticket, a property value, we are talking about personal abuse. How much do you need to save your soul? How do you determine the amount of compensation required. Should there be a limit on that at all? We'll just leave it all up to the lawyers? And yes there are lawyers anxious to take these cases, their souls could use a little saving too, about 25 or 30% of the settlement should do. 
 I don't have any of the answers when it comes to this. I have never been abused in that way. I can't pretend to have any understanding of what that may do to a person. I have been wronged by others in the past and left with disappointment and anger. I'm certain some of those things altered my outlook on life, I call that experience and experience isn't always a pleasant thing. With some of those things a few hundred bucks would definitely make me feel better, make it a bit easier to just move ahead, but it still wouldn't make me forget. 
 Forgiveness, as far as I'm concerned, just means I won't retaliate or seek compensation from you. I'm not forgetting. I'm writing this just because it sticks in my craw. "Saving souls is far more important than saving the almighty dollar" What sticks is the implication that money is the answer, money will save my soul but only if it a large enough amount! It's been said that Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil in exchange for playing a guitar, the same has been said about Bob Dylan only for the ability to write songs. Well my soul doesn't have a price tag. If you want to give me a hundred, or a million in exchange for my soul I'll take your money alright, no problem with that. Thing is, you aren't getting anything in return, but I won't be telling you that. Most likely, it will take a bit more, just to be sure. I'm not certain how much Saint Peter wants at the gate, what is the cost of admission. That is no time to be worried about a dollar.

                                                                                 
Is this credit or debit? 

 

                                                                                      

                                                                             

Wednesday, April 16, 2025

what you deserve

  Defining equal. What is equal? Is it a balanced scale? Or does equal mean balancing that scale, providing a bit "extra" to one side. If two people are taking a test, and one reads at a slower rate than the other, does that mean the slower reader gets more time? Does that make it equal? If that is the case getting a "head start" in a foot race would make the race equal as well. If certain students are receiving one on one instruction while others are not, is that equal? Isn't that equivalent to having a private tutor? Equal treatment? I don't think so. You know the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team has a "little person", "midget" or whatever the politically correct term is on their team. Is that person receiving equal treatment? Yes, because he is being given a equal chance at being an entertainer. Is he equal as a ball player? You don't see any of those people in the NBA and I'm not hearing any great cries for inclusion. Well, I guess it isn't discriminatory when it comes down to that.
  What I'm hearing is that others can only be equal when they are receiving more. That applies in every case, every situation. The wealthy folk should give me their money to make me equal to them. The ones that can not keep up with the curriculum shouldn't be held back, I should, to make them equal with me. When I was taking Spanish in high school I wasn't provided a private tutor, a special classroom and materials to make me equal to a native speaking Spanish person. No, I was taught that language as a "second" language because I am an American and speak English because, wait for it, I live in America.     You know, it is like I have been saying for quite a while now, everyone wants to be treated equally until they are! Once that happens, we have to find the "weight" to balance the scale in my favor. And that is what equal really is, when I'm favored over others. That's the new definition of equal. It goes hand in hand with discrimination. If you don't agree with me 100%, you are discriminating against me. You probably hate me. The mindset being, I deserve so much more! Isn't that what you hear from every lawyer on the television? Get what you deserve! And your share of equal is always, at a minimum of 51%. Now that's inclusivity.  

                                                                               

Tuesday, April 15, 2025

That's reasonable

  Let's consult the constitution? How do we identify and prove illegal gang affiliation. I've read over that document a few times already but have yet to find an answer to that one. But that is what I keep hearing on the news, proof needs to be provided before we can say anyone belongs to any of these illegal gangs. Tattoos aren't proof, wearing gang colors isn't proof. Being arrested for committing crimes isn't proof, that only means you are being singled out, probably a racist thing. Even when you are guilty it isn't your fault, you are being marginalized, unemployed because of your tattoos and you can't speak English. But if we could prove that you are a gang member that would be different. The thing is though, you have to identify yourself in that fashion. If you don't identify as an MS-13 or Tren de Aragua member how could we know? Heck, we are supposed to ask our five year old children what gender they are, you can't just assign them a gender. And you can't assign those people gang membership either.
  Now I'm always hearing about the global community. How we are supposed to help each other out, providing aid and assistance. We are all just one big family, globally speaking. Well, if you are a criminal in your home nation, wouldn't you also be a criminal in my nation? I mean, we are all in the same family, right? Seems to me if your criminal is in my nation I should return him/her to you, its' the neighborly thing to do. If you are a criminal in my country, you know by illegally crossing the border, I should also return you to your home country, my rule is we don't allow criminals in the country. Your country can decide if you did anything to violate their laws. 
  But back to this requirement of proof. Are their membership roles for these criminal gangs? Are they issued a license, a permit or something that identifies them as bona-fide members? I keep reading the Constitution but I can't find anything in there. There is the beyond a reasonable doubt thing. So what is reasonable? If you are in my country illegally, can't speak the language, and have half your body covered in tattoos identifying yourself with a gang, its' reasonable to assume you are a gang member. That's my thinking on that anyway. If I wear a red ball cap I will be associated with this so called MAGA movement. Everyone thinks that is a reasonable assumption. If I'm carrying a Pride flag it is assumed I support the LGBTQ+ community, that seems like a reasonable thing. 
  Reasonable doubt. It is the highest standard. It is part of the 14th amendment. Reasonable doubt must show evidence so convincing that no other reasonable verdict could be assumed. That is getting to be a very difficult thing to prove these days as we redefine what is reasonable. Is Bruce Jenner now a woman? Many will say so, I have a reasonable doubt about that. I believe there is evidence to the contrary, even though I haven't personally observed such. If I were a member of a jury I would request to see that evidence. Case closed beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it really reasonable to believe millions of people, traveling in caravans across thousands of miles are really fleeing for their lives? All while carrying their cell phones, back packs, food supplies, medical supplies, infant children and wearing designer clothing. That doesn't seem like a reasonable explanation to me. Sounds more like someone financing an expedition for their own gain in some fashion. 
  So just where did all these people go now that the border is closed? Strange I haven't heard a thing about any migrant caravans invading any other nations. They were all just passing through as many as three other countries, all of them I guess unfriendly, unwilling to help, or going to kill them! Are all those people now being suppressed, abused, misused, beaten, enslaved, murdered and subject to sexual assaults? That is what they were fleeing, right? Wasn't that the reason? I can only assume they have scattered like rats on a sinking ship, seeking high ground wherever they find it. Or, maybe they just went back where they came from, that seems a bit more reasonable to me. In fact, if you are in my country illegally that is exactly where you should go, back where you came from. If you are a visitor, a guest, or just a temporary resident and commit a serious crime in my country, back you go. You will , of course, first face American justice for that crime, then deported to your home nation for whatever punishment they deem appropriate for that crime. Being one big community, you know a global community, the punishment should be the same. Seems reasonable to me.  

                                                                                      
 It's reasonable to assume he is a member. 

Monday, April 14, 2025

a standard

  I'm old enough to remember when there was no rating system on movies. There was a time when Hollywood policed themselves as to content. Over time time greed overtook morality and things began to get a bit saucy. Yes, it was discovered that sex sells! Movies began to be made for the specific reason of making money, the content taking a back seat. The guidelines being followed at that time were the Hays code. It stated that no motion picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it. Films were to be acceptable and decent. That code fell to the wayside and was replaced in 1968 by the motion picture association of America. Now, there was no requirement to be acceptable or decent, you just got a warning about that content being in the film. Audience attendance was regulated by age groups, the system currently in use, although I'm not certain why, given the subject discussed in kindergarten these days.
  I began to think about all of that when I saw this warning on a movie: contains sex, violence and smoking! Wait a minute now, people are smoking in this film, omg, that just isn't decent at all. People may be influenced by that, causing them to lower their moral standard. Hey sex, violence, and smoking? I couldn't help but think how stupid that is. Is that where we are really going to start drawing a line, on people smoking. Way back in 1965 cigarette packs had to include a warning. People kept right on smoking. Then in 1971 advertising for cigarettes on television was banned. People kept right on smoking. In 1997 the powers that be killed Joe Camel! People kept on smoking. In 1999 all billboard advertising for cigarettes was banned. People keep on smoking. Still, people are smoking. But, now we will include that warning about people smoking in films to prevent anyone from being influenced or triggered by that. Seeing someone smoking could surely have long lasting traumatic effects on someone, they should be warned! It may lower their moral standard.
 Now any and all pharmaceuticals may be advertised. There is no restrictions on any of that, demand your doctor prescribe whatever miracle cure is being presented. Beer, hard tea, wine and liquor are all fine, advertise away, there is no danger of anyone lower their moral standard with any of that. Condoms and any number of birth control devices are advertised, no questioning moral standards on any of that. One product in  particular urges you to "prep up." "Descovy" is that product. The instruction being use this product to avoid being infected with aids, engage in sexual acts with anyone at anytime without any concern at all. What is that moral standard? Just don't smoke any cigarettes afterward. 
  I know this is just a small thing, a passing thing as well, as it will eventually be removed from those warnings. I expect all warning will be removed at some point in the not too distant future. It's simply a matter of time and business. But I pay attention to what is going on around me and like most "senior" people comment upon the changes. It is the changing social character that is being observed. Expected behaviors and the standard morality does change slightly with each generation. It's a cycle like all others. Remember when businesses were generally closed on Sundays? Remember when people were polite? Remember when it was usual, and unexpected, for someone to tell you about their failures and shortcomings? Today they broadcast such things, write books about it, create fundraisers, and call themselves survivors! You are expected to respond with, me too.
 I don't know, but it all just seems a bit silly to me. I was raised with the belief that the objective wasn't to recover, it was to never have screwed up in the first place. You certainly didn't brag about any of that. At best you would confide in your closest friend, family member or clergy about such things. It was rather a private thing. The motion picture industry began making films they felt were suitable for everyone. There was a code, the Hays code that was generally agreed upon as to what was moral and what was not. It expressly forbid scenes of violent murders. Today we have entire films dedicated to just that. But, we do warn you about films containing scenes of people smoking! Whew, at last some decency in film. Well, at least a warning about that, you can still pay for your ticket and indulge your more "base" urges and desires. Smoking sells.   

                                                                            
 one smooth character.