I see you

  Here's a controversial topic, emotional support animals. I'll begin with a couple simple questions. How are they different from a teddy bear? Are they any different from having a night light? And why do we support that with legislation? Why are we issuing papers that allow people to take animals with them everywhere they go because they require emotional support? Why are we enabling a mental health issue instead of attempting to correct that. I guess for the same reason we are now being told there are more than two gender choices. It isn't crazy if we allow that, make it a normal thing. Yeah, it wasn't crazy to behead people either, or burn them at the stake, that was normal too. But just how did we arrive at this emotional support animal thing, that's what I want to know.

  Now I get the guide dog thing for the blind, that makes perfect sense. I also understand the whole attachment thing to your pet. Still, an emotional support animal is used for a mental health disorder. So, the experts all agree on that, it is a mental disorder. It's a psychiatric disability. It wasn't until 1988 however that legislation began to be introduced regarding emotional support animals. It was introduced as part of the housing and urban development to allow animals to live in those housing units. It has spread ever since. And now I'm expected to make concessions for, to give special treatment and consideration to anyone with an emotional support animal. Yes, be kind to the mentally ill. 

  So just what emotional support do those animals provide? They certainly get the attention those folks so desperately want, that's for certain. Look at me, look at me! I'm special and should be treated in a special way. In my opinion it's the same thing with all this "pride" stuff. Look at me, I'm different than you and you have to acknowledge that, support that, and treat me differently. I'm so special! No, you're not, you have a mental issue. An issue the majority of us outgrow when we are very young. You know when we begin to understand the difference between reality and fantasy. We do understand that carrying a teddy bear with us is just weird! Yeah, call it peer pressure or whatever, but that is the reality of life. It isn't a normal thing to require an emotional support object, even when that object is a living creature of some sort.

  If that animal isn't a trained support animal for a person with a physical disability that animal has no place in planes, trains, shopping centers, restaurants or anywhere the public in general would have to contend with that. Keep your pets in your personal space! You say you need that animal for emotional support. What if I say I need an AR-15 for emotional support or a colt 45, shouldn't I be allowed to carry those with me? Why not, it's an emotional thing, makes me feel secure. If you need a snake, I need a gun. Same thing right? It's for my mental well being. You feel threatened by that, maybe I feel threatened by your animal. Some folks are really afraid of dogs, cats, snakes, pigs or whatever. They have a phobia! It's a mental disability. 

  You may ask why does that bother me. That's a valid question and my answer is simply, because it is crazy. When we start empowering, supporting, and legislating mental issues as some sort of human right, we are a society in decline. It isn't anything to be celebrated. It should actually be a source of concern. What is happening to us? Are we to become a group of emotionally dependent people that can not accept reality? Are we to be crippled by emotional instability? We need medications and emotional support animals to function in society because other people are just mean. I want my teddy bear! Those fidget spinners just didn't cut it did they? Didn't get nearly the attention you wanted. So now I'll dye my hair purple, get tattoos all over my body, piercings in my face, use a different pronoun and carry a dog dressed as a baby. It's all for my emotional well being. It's nuts! That's my opinion. 

  All that being said I will add that I have never said anything to anyone in public about any of that. I keep those opinions to myself for the most part. So why I am writing it down? Well, because I'm leaving a record of my thoughts and feelings for future generations. I have often wondered what my grandparents, great grandparents and beyond thought about their current events, how they felt about things. I'm aware of a few people that read my blogs, people that I have known or went to school with, some I have met on Facebook. I don't hide anything from anyone when it comes to sharing my views. It has cost me some friendships, some people don't like or agree with me and that's alright, it happens. This blog is simply meant to leave my thoughts regarding emotional support animals. It's my feeling the vast majority of them are just bogus, a cry for attention and shouldn't be encouraged. Too many people today willing to assume the role of "victim" and so deserving of special treatment. Look at me, look at me. Yeah, I see you. 

                                                                                 

This is what I'm talking about. 

Sailors

 I was in the Navy back in the day. I was there before women served on ships or in any combat roles. I was there before don't ask, don't tell. I was there when smoking cigarettes was expected and getting hammered a right of passage. Yes, I was there for all of that and more. Over my twenty year career I saw many things change. Mostly the changes were for the better if I'm honest about that, but not all. Having been retired since 1993, I really have no clue what the deal is today. I suspect things haven't really changed all that much as far as human nature goes, the only changes being in the regulations. The expectations are most likely the same as always, being a sailor. My question is, what does that entail today? Is it the dominance of that alpha male! I suspect that it is. Toward the end of my career in the navy we did have women on ship. And yes, there were the alpha females! They were called "butch" back then, an offensive term rarely heard today. Of course today I hear about gender fluidity in the services. A kinder, gentler military. 

 I'm thinking about the social construct. It was in the 70's and 80's that I served. Those decades were filled with social change. I chuckle when I remember one of the first questions you would be asked when reporting to your ship; are you cool? What they wanted to know was your stance on the use of marijuana. You were either "cool" or a narc! Yes that really was the big issue that I recall. You also learned quickly to stay in your paygrade! You shouldn't hang out with those of a higher rank than yourself, there was a defined hierarchy! Know your role! You were expected to follow that. You were also expected to smoke, drink and swear! If you weren't doing that, you just weren't cool. All of that was just a part of "paying your dues" as the saying goes. It was how you earned respect. You could tone it all back as you rose in the ranks, although you did have to have some good sea stories about your exploits as a boot. 

 I was subjected to a good deal of hazing, as they call that today. We just called it fooling around. Never thought of it in any other way. Just having a little fun at the expense of the new guys. Yes there were times when things got a little out of hand. That was when you had to exert yourself a bit harder, assume that alpha male role. You didn't cry about that, you did something about it! Did feelings get hurt? I guess so, but no one was talking about that, only cuts and bruises would be mentioned. Yeah, tell the guys your feelings were hurt, LOL, best way to I know to get yourself subjected to further hazing. Go complain to someone higher up in the chain of command. Yeah, right. All that hazing was just a way of forming a bond, a manly bond with your shipmates. But you didn't say anything like that, not even hint at it. Are you crazy? No, just no. If any of that bothered you, that's what drinking was for. 

 Look I'm not saying things were better back in my day, I can't know that without having served today. I'm just telling how it used to be. It is what I experienced. I would do it all again in a minute. Yes, there are some things I would do differently. Still, for the most part it was a good time, maybe I had too much of a good time in retrospect. I could have applied myself more diligently to rising through the ranks. I could have furthered my formal education, earned a degree or a commission. 

  I didn't do either one. I knew what was expected of me and did my best to meet those expectations. I made first class petty officer and served as the engine room supervisor while underway. Responsible for millions of dollars of machinery and the proper operation of that equipment. I stood ready to "answer all bells" in the pit. A sailors sailor! I've seen everything, been everywhere, done everything. Been through hurricanes, sailed the seven seas, saw exotic ports and drank gallons of beer and liquor. I have the certificates to prove it! I sailed on iron ships with iron men. We were sailors! 

  I do wonder about what it is today. Everything we were doing is either banned or frowned upon today. Every one of use would be admitted to rehab today or referred for mental health treatment. Just what are the sailors doing today for relaxation and entertainment? I'm thinking whatever it is it isn't nearly as much fun as we had. At least I think we had fun, I was told I did anyway, my memory is a bit hazy. I could tell you some stories though, they all begin with "no *hit." If you know, you know.  

                                                                                

who pays?

  Universal health care. It's a topic of discussion and contention. The debate really centers around whether I should have to pay for your healthcare. That's the real discussion. Should the government mandate that? I have to pay for your healthcare and pay for my own as well? Beyond any moral or ethical obligations I may feel, should I have to pay? We are talking about legislated charity. When there are no restrictions placed upon eligibility or entitlement, it is just straight up charity. Is charity a human right. I don't believe it is. Charity is exactly what it says it is, a gift. 

  Here in the United States we do have a few forms of universal health care. Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare function as a form of universal health care. Other nations in the world have similar programs. But when we hear universal health care people are thinking about getting any and all medical procedures provided for free to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for those services. The government will decide how much the provider gets paid for those services. Those fees will be set, universally. Everyone gets paid the same.

  If the government is going to operate as a charitable organization shouldn't that charity extend to other things as well? Shouldn't I have a home equal to yours, even though I can't pay for that? Shouldn't I be able to eat at any fine dining establishment I want without having to pay for that? If we are going to say the government should provide equally for all, doesn't that mean all? I don't work but I want that new car, I should be given that car, you should buy it for me and pay for the insurance, gas, maintenance and car washes, it's only fair. Just because I can't afford it, is no reason for me not to have that. 

  If we are going to provide universal health care then everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, should be provided with exactly the same care. Obama care was widely touted as a great step forward. But what did it actually do? It forced insurance companies to accept otherwise ineligible people into their systems. It forced the taxpayers to pay for more services. It tried, and failed , to impose a universal fee on every taxpayer in the country! That fee was for failure to purchase insurance! Well, unless you couldn't afford that insurance that is. Then a one time fee was to be imposed. The plan being to take some of your other free stuff instead. The whole plan is just a shell game. It does force the taxpayers to pay for those that can not pay, to a degree. A great deal of the shell game involves programs/schemes to prevent the insurance companies from simply folding up shop and getting out of the business. Yeah, it is called the "affordable care act" in an effect to make it sound good. The key word is still, affordable. It isn't free! And that is the bottom line no matter how you look at it. 

  Universal health care. Who pays for that? Should you be forced to pay for those that are unable or unwilling to purchase their own insurance? If I can get it for free, why would I pay for it? That's the bottom line in the discussion. Or we are we really going to say it is need based. If you can afford insurance, you have to buy insurance. But we can't even tell those receiving free benefits for food what food they can purchase. They have a right to potato chips, sugary drinks and anything else they want. If they want to buy lobster it's their right! Can we really tell them they can't have the very finest medical team in the country. The hospitals and drug manufacturers must provide everything, for free to whoever comes in the door, no questions asked. 

  Why don't we call it what it is, socialized medicine. Well, because here in the United states we are anti-socialism aren't we? We have a constitutional republic, a form of representative government where all men are created equally. My opinion is just as important as yours! Socialism dictates PUBLIC ownership of property and natural resources. Private ownership is forbidden. Well, unless you're Bernie Sanders then you call yourself a democratic socialist. You're not really a socialist, but you still control everything, no private ownership. Property and business will be controlled "democratically" by a vote from the ruling class, who aren't communists or socialists, they're democrats! They will decide how much you get, when you get it, and how much you can have. 

  It is all a matter of creating dependence. That's the entire plan in a nutshell. When you can make the population dependent upon your charity you can control that population. You may have to deny them certain things, like the right to self defense or control of the food supply, but as long as you provide the "free" stuff most will comply. The biggest problem to overcome is getting the wealth away from those that earned it. People sure are touchy about that. Funny how just because it is their wealth they think they don't have to give it away, you know, when they have enough. And that is the specialty of those socialist democrats. They know when you have enough! It's anytime you have more than they do. 

                                                                                       

Aesthetics

  Remembering when calendars were a thing. The end of the year is closing in fast, soon be October you know, and it was at this time of year salesman began handing out those calendars. I expect some still do, carry on a tradition so to speak, but I've been retired for a few years now and so don't see that. I'll have to check with the local pharmacy, they used to do that. When I first got a computer and a printer I started making my own calendars, well at least one month at a time. It was a bit of a novelty and I soon quit that. I did keep a desk calendar, the blotter type to record things. Just haven't bought a new one yet as I couldn't find one the right size.

  The last place I worked where the salesman handed out calendars was a factory that manufactured road flares. I was a part of the maintenance crew and also fabricated parts for the unique machinery that produced those flares. It was a machine shop, welding shop and general repair shop. The salesman provided calendars for the "manly" men that worked in that shop. Yes, those calendars featured young ladies! At first they were barely clothed at all, then attire was added, and eventually no ladies at all. The pin-up calendar girls were abolished from the workplace. And, here we are today! I don't want to know what is on calendars today. 

  I do remember when the banks gave out calendars, most of the local shops had them and they had all sorts of nice pictures on them. Nature scenes, animals, cars, homes just all sorts of things. Most people I knew had at least one calendar hanging on the kitchen wall, usually next to the phone. All the holidays were listed. They would be be scribbled with little notes and phone numbers, maybe a doodle or two before that page was ripped off and discarded. Especially nice pictures might be saved and even framed. Today I don't see many calendars at all. They are on the phones! I'm aware I can set reminders on my computer and my phone but I seldom do that. Usually when I decide to do that I've forgotten how to do that. Never had that problem with a calendar. 

  I googled pin up calendars to see if they are still a thing. Turns out they are, although this is how they are described. "They continue to be popular, and with various collections available with glamorous images and vintage styles. Many brands, including vintage pin-up artists and modern creators, produce these calendars, appealing to fans of retro aesthetics and classic americana." Yes, they are something of the past when it was acceptable to display such things in a mans world! That was before the "ladies" invaded the work spaces of the guys. Pin ups were designed to get the guys attention! Yes, it really was a mans world. 

  I remember the day in the shop when that salesman came. We were anticipating the new calendar and asked if he had any. It was with sorrow and regret that he informed us his company would no longer be doing that. There would be no pin up this year, the calendar had pastoral scenes on it, cute little bunnies and flowering fields. No more bikini clad babes holding pipe wrenches or checking the oil in a hot rod! They always wore heels when doing that stuff too. The company was changing there marketing strategy. It was a sad day in America. And now, now it's called retro aesthetics! Aesthetics are concerned with nature and an appreciation of beauty. Yes, that's exactly what we were doing with those calendars! Classic Americana. Yeah, back when men where men, and knew that! There was no confusion about any of that. Ah, the good ole days. Todays calendars just aren't what they used to be.  

                                                                                     

popular

  I guess we all just get stuck in our ways, develop a routine that we become comfortable with. The televisions shows we watch, the music we listen to and a myriad of other little things. When we were younger we attempted to stay up with everything, to be current, or as we said in my day, be cool. You had to know what was happening. Today I make little effort in that regard, just listen to the news and wonder what happened? Lots of crazy stuff going on in the world. 

  I did hear where Jimmy Kimmel was canceled, well for a short time anyway, and the deep concern for freedom of speech being expressed by those on the left. It was the end of the Republic as we know it according to some. The fact of the matter is this, I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel or his light night show. I'm assuming that is what he does. I've heard his name but know nothing much beyond that. He is is of little interest to me, just another entertainment. Way back when Saturday Night Live was actually funny I did watch that show. I don't recall anything too controversial about that show. Mostly it was just silly nonsense. Did any of those entertainers make any significant social or political impact? Not that I know about. They are entertainers.

  I hear that Jimmy Kimmel is a comedian. I read his show has been on for 22 years! That's news to me, I wasn't aware. As I said never watched his show. I'm not even certain what he said that got him booted, something about Charlie Kirk. I remember when Cathy Griffin got herself blackballed! She's still complaining about that from what little I hear. Well the thing about comedy is, it has to actually be funny. There are things that you just don't make fun of. If you intend to make your living telling jokes you really should be aware of that. There is a fine line between poking fun and offending. People tend to laugh at themselves when a truth is exposed, not so much when the comedian attempts to impose their humor on them. Comedians often make their living by making the audience a bit uncomfortable, inciting that nervous laughter. We will laugh about that stuff, while not admitting to actually doing that stuff.

  It does seem to me that a number of these entertainers have gotten themselves in trouble over the last few years. Seems to me that they have forgotten just what made them popular in the first place. That's what you need to stick with. Yes, it really is a case of, know your role. Those that make me laugh I really don't take very seriously. If I find myself troubled, seeking advice, I won't go to a comedian. You know the more you expose of yourself the fewer "friends" you are likely to have. Yes, even those very close to you will distance themselves if you begin to offend them. You could get disowned! It's one of those things in life. We are told to be honest, open and completely truthful with others, it is a matter of integrity! Yet, if you start to actually do that, you'll find yourself isolated quickly enough. You just don't share your every thought. 

  All I'm trying to say here is don't get too full of yourself. If your livelihood depends upon your popularity you should protect that popularity. In short, stay funny. Don't attempt to be more than what you are presenting yourself to be, a comedian. If you're not comfortable with being the funny man, get another occupation. You really can't tell jokes for years and then expect me to take you seriously. That isn't why I'm listening to you. When you are no longer funny, you're not going to be popular. That's how that works.      

                                                                                       

Traitors

  The rule of law. That is the founding principle for our nation. We declared our intentions plainly enough, and subsequently wrote the constitution. It took another 811 days to ratify and add the bill of rights. While attempting to get the constitution written and ratified adding amendments was a part of the deal. The amendments were a compromise at that time. As we all know and quote frequently today, free speech and the right to bear arms topped the list. They are essential to maintaining law and order! The bill of rights protect the people, not empower the government. Well, at least the first ten do but that is a discussion for another blog. The preamble to that constitution states the objective of that document quite plainly. To insure domestic tranquility. 

  Today I'm hearing about these attacks on ICE officials. An attack on ICE, is an attack upon the government. Treasonous in my book. With all the talk of due process these days, it appears that many do not fully understand what due process actually is. It certainly isn't attacking law enforcement personnel! These are targeted attacks, premeditated, planned and organized. An internal resistance force to our laws. And just who is funding and supporting this? Are they just people crusading for justice? Hardly, they are domestic terrorists. If our law enforcement personnel can not do their jobs without fear for their lives, and indeed the safety of their families, can we expect to have domestic tranquility? How is any of that due process? 

  A review of history will show some interesting parallels. Remember when a number of states refused to comply with the rule of law. They simply refused and eventually seceded from the union altogether. Yeah, a civil war erupted over that. But those states lost that battle and were readmitted to the union. What was the response? Those states simply began making their own laws, what we now call the Jim Crowe era, in an attempt to control a certain demographic. A demographic that provided fiscal rewards for those making the laws. That continued for nearly a hundred years! There were men wearing sheets enforcing all of that. No concern for due process at all. They weren't just wearing masks! The same groups today are complaining that ICE agents are wearing masks. 

  I see it all happening once again. States that are declaring their sovereignty. These states are now fostering armed violent protests against the rest of the nation. At least one is talking about succession. Many states refusing to cooperate with federal authority. What is the message being sent to our young people? Everyone gets to do whatever they want. I hear statements like, the constitution says, all people, it doesn't say just citizens of this country. So you're trying to tell me that after having won our independence, after defeating the strongest military in the world at that time, we wrote that "everyone" no matter what nation they call home is entitled to everything we won. We won that war for them!  Yeah, that makes sense alright.

  A foundational element of our government is the supremacy clause in the constitution. When all is said and done there has to be a final authority. The federal government is that authority, superseding any state law. Any disputes must be resolved through due process, ie: the supreme court of the United states of America. The court must issue its' opinion, and congress must subsequently concur with that opinion. All law enforcement agencies must act together to ensure that domestic tranquility. Each agency has a role to play and must be fully supported. Any attacks on law enforcement personnel is an attack on the government. It's a personal attack on your home! It isn't a protest, it isn't justice, it is terrorism!  Anyone attacking any law enforcement personnel should be treated as traitors! They are attacking the constitution.     

                                                                                       

  

prudence

  My mother was married four times, divorced once. It doesn't sound all that good when you write it down. Her first marriage ended in divorce and she never spoke of that. I can only recall one occasion when she pointed out a man that, as she put it, was the father to my two brothers. I don't recall a name or anything much else about that. All I do know from that marriage was that he was a catholic, Mom had become a catholic, and after the divorce she wasn't a catholic anymore. That's about it. 

  Her second marriage was to my father. With him she had my sister and I. That would have been in 1951 and 1953 respectively. She remained with him until 1990, when he passed away. She then met and married a gentleman by the name of Ken. That was in 1994. Ken passed away just three years later in 1997. Her final husband was Joe. I'm not certain of the year he passed but it was well before Mom. Mom passed in 2021. She did live a full life that much is certain. And the thing is, she had many names over that lifetime. Beginning with her maiden name they were, Bennett, DeCristofaro, Thursum and DeFelice. Her Christian name was Ruth Lorraine. 

  Now mom was a crafty person, always busy knitting, crocheting, sewing and sometimes even painting. It was during her time with Ken that she took up oil painting. She gifted me three pieces of her artwork, all framed very nicely, and I have one of them hanging on my bedroom wall. The other two are stored safely away for now, I really don't have the wall space to display them. But I noticed the one in my bedroom this morning and the initials in the corner, RBT. That would be, Ruth Bennett Thursam. It came to mind that I would be one of the few to know that. That's when I thought I had better write it down, perhaps on the back of the painting, to ensure others know after I'm gone.

  I am thinking about all the names she had. It's something the ladies would understand completely but I think us guys don't really think much about that. We are born with a name and keep that name our whole lives. Yes, we often use a nick-name but I'm talking about that surname. Unless we go to the courthouse and specifically request a name change, it remains. In more modern times some have chosen to go the hyphenated route. I can see that although it seems a bit awkward to me. Guess it is that chauvinism in me. But whatever the case may be, I see her initials on the painting but to me , they are wrong. They should be RBR. After all, she was Ruth Reichart when I was born! Seems like that should count. 

  I have never thought much about mom remarrying after my fathers passing. It does seem like a natural thing to do. No one wants to spend their life alone, we all need company. Well, at least my mom didn't want to be alone, that was a part of her personality. A strong, independent woman? No, that isn't how I would describe her.  Oh, she was no push over, she wasn't a wallflower that much is certain, and capable too, just not happy being alone. Can't say that I blame her for that. Despite all the name changes, she remained the same person. The name on her headstone is Ruth DeFelice. Few would know any of the others I suspect. 

  I don't know why this came to mind this morning as that picture has been hanging there for years now. I'm thinking it is simply because I'm wondering if my sons would know that. Family history is often clouded over time as the "kids" aren't really paying attention. I can say for certain there were many things I just wasn't paying attention to. I had great aunts and uncles, relatives right there in town and was never even aware of them. A few of them my mom would go visit and I still didn't make any connections. That is especially true with the Mrs. Just who were they before they were Mrs? Didn't know, didn't think to even ask that, she was just Mr. "whoevers" wife. It doesn't seem fair when you think of it that way. 

  It's a rather strange thing to write about your mom and her private life. I do feel like I might be telling secrets. But, it isn't a secret is it? All of that is a matter of public record if you want to go search for that. I can say from experience however, it isn't as easy as all that. Lots of information is hidden in plain sight! Each state has different rules regarding releasing personal information, even after the person has passed. Marriages and divorces are a part of that. Both are simply recorded with the court and tucked away. You will be asked to produce those documents on occasion, but very seldom. If you don't tell, many would never know. 

  I can say with certainty Mom wouldn't be happy about this! It isn't anything she would talk about! Is this a betrayal? No, I don't think it is, it is a simple telling of the facts. Not making any judgements, drawing any conclusions from any of that history, it is just history. It's difficult to think of your parents as just people. People with private lives that you know nothing about really. Parents didn't do the same dumb stuff you did. They didn't act like that! No, they were born mature, responsible people that always did the best thing for everyone else. If they had done anything wrong, they certainly had learned their lesson and repented. I heard my mother cuss once, it was a shock! Well, she was getting older then and it was probably a medical thing. Old people start doing that sometimes. 

  So I'm writing about the secret life of my mother. You could put it that way I suppose and perhaps I shouldn't be doing that. Will I write about my own secrets? Well now that's another story altogether isn't it? I wouldn't mind doing that, but I don't want anyone to read it until after I'm gone. That's a bit of a cop out in my estimation. I'm afraid of what? Putting tarnish on a memory? It is what others remember of me, that will define me in the future. Do you get to create that memory? I don't think you do, although you get to omit a few things to make the story a bit more, shall we say, harmonious. Does truth tarnish the past? Seems that way, when it is personal to you that is. Isn't that called vanity? I'm calling it prudence. Yeah, I'm going with that.       

    

                                                                                    

Walk it off

Well Tylenol and autism are headlining the news this morning. The recommendation now being, don't use it while pregnant. The major medical groups however claim there is no issue at all and not using it poses a health risk! Well, now I question who is being paid by whom to arrive at either conclusion. There is no doubt that autism has been on the rise, along with a bunch of other things. Consider these nut allergies. If you are a boomer how many kids did you know with that problem? Did they have posters on the wall warning everyone about the possible presence of nuts? I can honestly say I never saw a single one. All us kids ate lunch together, peanut butter sandwiches were quite common and no one was dying! Clearly, something is going on. 

 Did you know that a prescription for Tylenol was required in the 1950's. It wasn't anything you could pop like candy whenever you thought you had a headache. I'm no doctor that much is certain, but I do think I have enough common sense to know one thing, ingesting any drug in excessive amounts is never a good thing. Is this use of Tylenol creating autism? I don't have a clue about that. And sadly, I have no confidence in any of the studies or reports regarding any of that either. There was a time when I felt like I could trust the "experts" but that trust has been severely undermined. It does appear to me that research has been bought and paid for pharmaceutical companies. To some degree medications and there approval for use has become a political thing. 

  Is it just autism on the rise? If you're paying attention at all you know that isn't the case. Mental health is at the top of the conversation. How many times have you heard we are having a mental health crisis here in America? What do you think is causing that? I think it is a self fulfilling prophecy thing. Just keep telling the children they have a mental health issue and they will. Really not hard to understand. Combine that with therapy, giving them that attention they are obviously seeking, throw in a few medications and there you go. The whole "time out" thing just isn't working out at all! What's required is holding those kids accountable for their choices. You don't reward bad behavior with excuses, explanations and treatment. No, you teach them to live with their choices and soon enough they will learn just what is what. 

  The truth is, the vast majority of drugs used today only manage and relieve the symptoms. They do not cure the disease at all. So, is that a good thing? Well, it will certainly make you feel better anyway, a means to manage the pain or whatever discomfort you are experiencing. When I was little I was most often told, walk it off, you'll be fine. I was. Another thing when I was a kid was this, if you needed to take medication, you were sick. Sick people stayed in bed and had to eat chicken noodle soup. There was no running, playing, going out. No, Mom would tuck you into bed, give you medicine and instruct you to rest. Then she went about her day. That did more to "cure" me than anything else I was ever given. 

  I'm just wondering if we haven't medicated ourselves into sickness. By ingesting foreign substances formulated in a laboratory somewhere we have altered our immune systems. As a result we have these issues like peanuts! It is also affecting our mental processes. For years it was thought the Romans were poisoned by the lead pipes they used in their cities. That has since been shown to be hogwash. What actually caused the moral decay that destroyed an empire? I don't know but it wasn't lead poisoning. My thinking is today it is the ingesting of all these chemicals. "Better living though chemistry" is a phrase I heard growing up. I'm not convinced. 

  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Old Ben Franklin first uttered that advice. At first he was just talking about preventing fires but later included that in his Poor Richards Almanac as general advice. I'm thinking we are taking pounds of "prevention" and then there is no cure for that. You just can't undo what has been done. My advice will still be, walk it off, deep breaths and get a grip! The most powerful defense you have against those everyday aches and pains is your own mind. It's being self sufficient. Instead of reaching for whatever miracle cure is being offered just be a bit patient, give it time. Distract yourself by doing something constructive, rather than stewing in your juices. 

                                                                                   

                         Only basketball players suffer more serious injuries than soccer players. :) 

time and tech

  I just recently read where there are no cars made in America with roll down windows. Jeep made the last models with those but no more. It's power windows all around. I'm old enough to remember when power windows in a car were a luxury thing. I saw my first in a Cadillac. I was impressed. I think that same car may have had a "tone bar" radio. You could just hold a little bar in, and the dial would automatically move, seeking that next station. All that was combined with an automatic headlight dimmer! There was a big eye like thing on the dashboard that dimmed your headlights whenever another car came towards you, or, anytime light was reflected back to it off a sign, or anything else for that matter. I don't think I've seen another one of those devices since. Still, I read where thy are quite common on modern automobiles, guess I'm not living that luxuriously though.

  I have had power windows quit working and repaired them. It isn't a job that is any fun. I am old school expecting things to be screwed together with real metal screws and metal. That's usually not the case anymore. All manner of strange clips, plastic and otherwise that make it difficult to disassemble. And then putting it all back is another challenge as that plastic usually breaks or the fasteners don't fasten so well anymore. I have several "kits" of various fasteners just for that reason. Window broken? Even doing it yourself you better figure a few hundred bucks. The worst I've had happen to a roll up window was the knob fall off the handle. But in all fairness power windows are very reliable these days, so I'm saying it isn't a big issue.

  I haven't ridden in any of these self driving cars I hear about. I'm not about to allow the car to drive itself anyway. If I were riding with you and you did that, I would ask to be let out! Stop the car, I'll walk. I do not have the trust in technology required to do that. For me it's the same as riding in a rollercoaster. If I can't steer it, or put on the brakes, I'd rather not ride in it! Makes me nervous you know. I feel the same way riding with some folks I know! It's all a matter of trust. When I first heard of cars that could parallel park themselves I didn't like that. What if it decides to park while doing 65 on the interstate? Haven't heard of that happening but it could. My computer decides to do things all on its' own sometimes. Then it demands permission from the administrator to change back! I'm the administrator! 

  We were supposed to have flying cars by now. We do have air cushioned vehicles, although not approved for highway use, so that's getting closer. What we need however is anti-gravity technology to avoid all that blowing air creating dust and noise. Cars are equipped with anti-crash technology today. My granddaughters car will automatically start braking if she gets too close and she gets alarms if someone is in her blind spots. Radar technology! Wonder how much that costs to get repaired? Is it part of the vehicle inspection as well? Well, it isn't anything I'm ever going to concern myself with. I've got all the technology on my car that I need. And the truth is, most of it I would remove if I could! 

  Driving a car used to be more fun. I like it when you have to actually know what you're doing. You still can't beat a manual shift, manual choke and manual controls for things like heat. Dead battery? No problem, give her a good push, hop in and pop the clutch. Controls not working, probably just a cable issue, needs an adjustment. Yeah, when a cable wasn't an electrical harness you could do that stuff. The fun in driving is in operating the vehicle. I know, such an old fashioned idea. It's the same reason people ride motorcycles you know, it's fun. Yes I remember when cars had drum brakes that didn't work so well when they got wet. You did learn about pumping the brakes and being aware of that. I've had vacuum operated wipers that didn't work when going uphill, a function of manifold vacuum. But all that was when you had to know more than you today. I remember having two keys for the car, one for the ignition and the other for the door and trunk lock. A fob? You would find a pocket watch on the end of a fob! Well, time and technology change I suppose.    

                                                                               

                                                Be sure to keep it wound. 

legacy lives here

  We hear a lot about legacy these days. At this moment in history, here in America, we are talking about the legacy of Charlie Kirk. He will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His widow will continue his work. Every former president since Herbert Hoover has established a presidential library. There are currently 16. The purpose being to preserve their legacy. Creating a family tree is a popular hobby these days, to preserve your legacy. Andy Warhol famously said, everyone gets fifteen minutes of fame. I wonder, does everyone get a legacy? 

  Yes, I'd say we all get a legacy, the other thing different being, how long that legacy lasts. I've lived here in Greensboro for about thirty years now, I think, well aware I'm not a native. In the local cemetery there is a rather large mausoleum. It stands in stark contrast to any other memorial in that place. The name C.B. Jarman is chiseled above the dual brass entry doors. Mr. Jarman was a very successful businessman back in the day. What day was that? I don't know for certain as I haven't done any research on him. I have asked the "natives" and heard a few vague stories, tales mostly, about him. His legacy is apparently that mausoleum. I've quite certain during his lifetime he was respected, admired, and spoken of. If for no other reason than his wealth, power and influence in the community.

  There are many names we are all familiar with in history. We know their legacy or believe we do. Generals, inventors, artists, musicians and heroes in general. Closer to home we have own ancestors, those that left a legacy. I have a number of items that belonged to my ancestors, some I actually knew and others were gone long before my arrival. I believe as long as I remember them, tell others about them, that is their legacy. 

  I realize that legacy is often viewed as what you left behind, property, wealth or whatever. I have those items of legacy, although I just call them artifacts. Artifacts are those things either made or modified by people. It is a slight distinction between an object that was manufactured and one handmade. I do have both, but clump them all together. But whatever the case may be they represent a legacy. I also have just "stories" an oral history of people and places. I often write about those things, sharing them with whoever wants to read them. Those are legacy as well. The legacy survives as long as the stories are read. We grow up knowing certain phrases, or sayings that were passed down. They usually apply to one of our ancestors, or perhaps a close family friend. Tell the story or use the phrase a certain individual immediately comes to mind. That's a legacy.

  I don't think you get to create a legacy. That's not how that works. I believe your legacy must be created by others. Take the example of C.B.Jarman. Obviously a man of wealth, but virtually unknown here in Greensboro today except by those walking though the cemetery that see that imposing structure. Where are his descendants? Has his legacy faded into history? It certainly seems that way. He commissioned that mausoleum, I have heard the tale of it being delivered by railroad cars and assembled in its' present location. There is room for four inside. I'm told only he and his wife are interred there and the key to the doors have been lost over time. Those doors haven't been opened in many, many years. His legacy locked away. 

  I do make an attempt at curating legacy. Not my own, although I certainly don't want to be forgotten about, but the legacy I have inherited over the years. It's something I do in fits and starts. I do feel a sense of responsibility for that, although I find it difficult to create interest in that from others. I get it, when I was in my twenties and thirties I had little interest in old stuff. Today I'm looking around and realizing I'm getting to be among the last that can save that legacy. It's my feeling legacy lost can never be recovered. That's the responsibility I feel. It wasn't by choice I inherited these legacy items, but I can't dismiss them. Once I'm gone, I will have no further control. Who inherits the legacy? The answer is, the one who accepts the responsibility. Doesn't really matter what is written on a paper, legal or not, it is the acceptance of responsibility that counts.   

                                                                                

                                                  

                                                              Legacy lives here  

going somewhere?

  We will all be gone one day, there is no escaping that reality. The only question being, where. What if the answer is no where? It is something I have considered as a possibility but find that unsettling. That's strange though, because if I am going no where, I won't know it when we get there. So why should that bother me? But I don't believe that, and that is the cause for consternation. I could get there, fully aware. Given what I have been taught about that, it is reason to worry. Could be I won't receive as warm a welcome as I am hoping for. It's all a matter of confidence, being self assured, and totally convinced. In short, belief.

  I'm not one that believes in ghosts, signs and messages from the other side. I have never seen or heard a thing from anyone. Seems to me if there were another side that would have happened by now. But maybe you have to die on that side to get to this side. Do you know what side you are on? I admit to having my doubts about that but remain hopeful for a better place than this one. But a better place like where you go on vacation better, but you don't want to live there. If you did move there you would look for another place to go on vacation. Might be a few years or so before that happens, but it will. Might even want to go vacation to the place you left. Yeah, we call that going home. 

  Going home. That is another way of saying a person has died. I only recently heard of people preparing for their "homegoing" as an expression. I understand it is common in black culture. I learned that watching a television commercial for some life insurance company. Having that policy was a guarantee that the person was ready for their homegoing. Really, it is to provide the funds for others to send you away, sort of a prepaid vacation thing. You get to decide how much you expect them to spend on that. Are you counting on a plush casket in a prime plot in the local cemetery, a big ceremony, and an opulent headstone? Or, just a simple cremation, a simple urn to transport those ashes and a toss into the wind. Depends on how you want to go home I suppose.

  So just where is that home? We all had to come from somewhere. Adam came from the dust, that's what the Bible tells us. In fact the majority of major religions in the world believe much the same thing. Some don't mention God but simply say we came from the earth and to the earth we will return. Dust to dust as it where. We know what is expected of us if we want to go home. That knowledge is a part of our creation. We know right from wrong. It is the society in which we are raised that will begin to alter that knowledge, to modify it and provide for "exceptions." Then having learned that we begin to expect a reward for doing the "right" thing as defined by society. The reward is going home. Well, for some it is anyway, and for others I'm just not certain what they think. You don't go anywhere? That just doesn't seem right. 

  I hear that heaven is a gated community. I've never lived in a gated community but hear they are real nice. I've also heard they are a bit exclusive, with lots of rules. That does concern me. I've never lived in a gated community and so figure that can't be home. I'm not even certain I want to live in a gated community. I like having stuff in my yard, painting things colors I want and even having a boat in the driveway. If I am to go home it would have to be a dirt road, on the edge of a wooded area and just five neighbors within eyesight. No gates anywhere in sight.

  Maybe death is like going on vacation. You go where you want, have a great time, make some memories and then return home. It's just that you start all over again. You really wouldn't want to be on vacation forever, then it isn't a vacation anymore. You do have to have something you want to get away from. Or maybe what we call living is that vacation, and when it's over we are going home. The only problem there being, you don't get to decide when it is over, but you didn't get to decide on being here either.  

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    

Speech

   I have been writing and posting this blogs for 15 years now. There are few topics I haven't touched upon at least a few times. I'd say a good number of them are social commentary. I'm just giving my opinion on that. One of those topics has been something I call, polite company. It is somewhat of a recurring theme. I expect that is simply because it is at the core of my demeanor. It's how I was taught to "act right" or "straighten up and fly right" as my father would often say. There are certain words, phrases and tones in your voice that you do not use in a public setting, when in polite company. I'm reminded of that as the battle for "free speech" rages on with some insisting they can say anything they like without repercussions. They stand behind the first amendment right to do so. They're not wrong, just terribly misguided.

  What were the things I was taught to not say in polite company? The simplest answer would be, anything that might offend those you're speaking to. To start with, select your choice of words carefully. Who are you talking to. Why are you talking to them? If you are there, talking, to be cordial, one should be polite as well. If you are there to motivate the team, your language may be adjusted accordingly. The real measure being, what do those listening want to hear? Are they there to listen to your opinion or just to share theirs? Unfortunately it seems that today the primary mission is to disprove whatever the other person is saying. You had better be prepared to take up arms against the enemy, join the mob. There is no room for discussion! 

  Civil discourse is another term for polite company. You might say it's the ten dollar version. The intent is the same. You share your ideas, thoughts and beliefs with others in a non-threatening manner. A guarded exchange with the objective to simply share those ideas, not impose them upon others. That's why you don't use aggressive language and launch a verbal assault whenever you disagree with the message. People will respond accordingly. Launch an assault and a counterstrike will be the result. Happens every time. Temperance is another word that comes to mind. Temperance is self control. Wasn't aware of it at the time, but that is why I would be admonished with temper, temper. 

  I've been seeing this meme of Facebook that makes me smile. The citations vary as to who conducted this "study" but the claim is, people with higher intelligence swear more often and are more likely to be liberals. Ok; then when I was in the Navy I was surrounded by geniuses! Liberals? Well, I wouldn't say they were liberals except when it came to abandoning moral behaviors, they did quite well. The officers that I interacted with did use profane language, at least not in my company thy didn't, and they all have college degrees. That doesn't seem consistent with this study. 

  General George S Patton was famous for his speeches to the troops. Profanity laced they were intended to motivate, to inspire. The language was carefully chosen. He wanted to sound like, one of the guys! He knew exactly what "company" he was talking to and what they would respond to. They left there ready for a fight! Same thing happens today when those in position to express their opinions use similar language and intent. They don't have to be leading an army into combat to do that. All those "peaceful protests" started in that way. Riots start that way. Truth often arrives in whispers. Battles always begin with a shout! You can say whatever you like, a right guaranteed under that first amendment, but you have to choose the correct words and venue. Failure to recognize or respect that, and you should expect repercussions. Clothes are said to make the man. I'd suggest it is our words that define us.  

                                                                 

                                                              General George S Patton. 

It's swell

  I was a bit under the weather, as the old saying goes, and stayed off Facebook for a couple days. Perhaps it was because of my illness but I was surprised to learn that I didn't miss it all that much. Guess I haven't become addicted, drawn into that world nearly as deeply as I thought I might have been. And, that's a good thing. When I returned to my usual posting I was very pleased to have so many ask about my health, send well wishes and express concern. Wouldn't it be great if that were always the case with social media postings/remarks? A positive experience instead of stirring up hate and negativity. 

  I was asked if it was Covid. I have no idea as I didn't go to a doctor, do any home testing or anything like that. Ginger ale, tomato soup, rest. That's what I did. It wasn't debilitating, so it wasn't necessary. I had a few folks saying they had/where suffering from covid right now. To be honest I didn't think it was much of a thing anymore, just another variation, like the seasonal flu. We do still have a seasonal flu don't we? Yes, we need to sell that shot as well. I'm told I should get some shots specific to old people. It amuses me because I don't identify as an old person. We are going by whatever it is you identify as, right? Biology doesn't figure into that.

  Growing up my family didn't have any medical insurance. As a consequence we didn't consult a doctor unless it was considered serious. You pretty much had to be bleeding badly enough to cause alarm. It took a lot to do that as we weren't sissies or squeamish about a little blood. Broken bones was a good reason or a very high fever that lasted for more than a day. If that ginger ale, saltines crackers and tomato soup didn't work, it was probably serious. I still follow those basic guidelines to this day. Now I do have insurance and do checkups regularly, I'm progressive. Don't really see the need however, I don't take the car to the mechanic when it's running fine, why take my body to the doctor? But whatever. I'm thinking our healthcare system wouldn't be as overwhelmed and expensive if more people followed those guidelines of old.

  Well today we have "theme" songs for the various medications you can suggest to your doctor. I guess the thinking is to relieve the physicians of the stress in deciding what medication may be required. Just go into the office singing that jingle. "It's easy to see, I'm lowering my AIC" I just ran into a flash mob doing that that. So exciting. The music is supposed to distract you from the listing of possible side effects, effects like dying, don't worry it's rare, well only one incidence per patient has been reported.       You could take Jardiance, the have a cute turtle informing you about treating your CKD. They do say don't take it if you are allergic to it. If you're not, you will have an increased risk of losing your lower limbs after you take it. You are urged to ask your doctor if Jardiance is right for you. In my thinking it's like taking the car to the mechanic and asking him if new brakes are right for me. Pretty sure I know the answer to that one. Why that analogy? Because Jardiance slows the progression of CKD, doesn't actually cure it. 

  A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. There are a number of things I know just enough about to be dangerous! But, I have learned over the years when I know enough to keep my hands off things too. Now it is good to ask questions, be informed and make a considered judgement on things. Thing is I can't learn years of medical knowledge and training by asking a few questions. That is why the  FDA mandated that all side effects must be disclosed to the public.

  Did you know if a side effect is only reported once, it must still be listed as a possibility. For that reason I'd suggest you study statistics instead of medicine when suggesting medications to your doctor. "Serious side effects may include" isn't providing much information. In fact, the more listed  makes it seem less likely that one of those "effects" may happen to you. The listing of side effects has been mandatory since 1962 following a drug called thalidomide was linked to thousands of birth defects! Fortunately it was never approved for use here in the United States.

  Well, I've been sitting here at this keyboard just rambling on. I'm not inspired to become an activist or social media influencer. No, I'm just a great grandfather sharing his thoughts with the world wide web. Those reading can simply take it for whatever they like. I'm not surprised if the majority will read and go away with a negative attitude. The experts all agree it is far easier to garner negative responses than it is to gain positive ones. I'm not seeing many negative comments and I'll take that as a positive. It could be that not many are reading, it's a possibility. But, I'll just take it as they agree with me and leave it at that. 

                                                                                     

                             Jardiance is really swell! :)  A.I. lists seven "common side effects" and seven more "serious side effects" but when it works, it's swell.  When I was a kid you could tell when it was Mattel, it was swell. Never heard of any side effects from any of their products. 

C&C

  I think perhaps the saddest thing I'm seeing these days are those that are confusing compassion with common sense. It's like a parent attempting to be a friend, instead of a parent. You can not allow your love, your compassion to establish boundaries. Moral boundaries must be established by empathy. It really is why I would hear, "this is hurting me more than it is you." Yes, it did cause pain to my parents when I required that discipline. The hope of every parent is that their child recognizes the rights of others, respects the rule of law, and exercises sound judgement. At this particular moment in time with the shooting of Charlie Kirk can you imagine how much hurt that had to cause his father? His father turned him in. Common sense directed him to do that, compassion was set aside. Compassion, in this scenario had to become a private thing, not a matter of law.

 So just what is true compassion? It is, pity, sympathy and concern for another, often involving an attempt to alleviate that suffering. It isn't the same thing as empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand another's feelings while maintaining a detachment from those feelings. The best among us have the ability to distinguish between the two, even when it affects us personally. It's a skill, a life lesson to learn and takes a lifetime of practice to master. There are those times when the common sense answer, the common sense approach, is what is required. You can not allow yourself to become embroiled in an emotional response. Compassion is an emotional response. 

 In ancient Greece there were the stoics. They taught that we should focus on the things that we can control and accept those things that we can not. A common sense approach in my humble opinion. I haven't made any scholarly studies about ancient Greek philosophies, I haven't had anyone attempt to teach me philosophy. I have simply developed my own, based on my life experiences. Stoic philosophy does most closely reflect what I'm thinking most of the time but even the stoics had disagreements among themselves. Sometimes I find myself doing that as well. I always win the argument however, I do believe in making a decision. Is it always the correct one? Well, that's another whole discussion philosophically. Thing being, belief requires no proof! If I believe it, it is real to me. Your reality is always going to be just a bit different. 

 Justice is blind. Isn't that the promise we have here in America. A fair, unbiased, unemotional response based on law. The judge isn't supposed to be compassionate, although we have provided avenues for just that, according to law. A crime of passion may not be viewed in the same way as a wanton act of violence. Our judicial system recognizes that. Justifiable is what we call that. Justification is based in  empathy. I can feel and understand your motives, your emotional response to a situation. In the legal system compassion is reserved for the victim, although I'm seeing a shift in that thinking. For the one committing the crime, compassion is solely based in empathy. But empathy isn't a guarantee of compassion! That is not a "right" guaranteed by law. I can understand why you stole the money but that doesn't excuse you stealing it, or lessen the punishment. 

  Our constitution is, as John Adams famously observed, only adequate for a people with "virtue and moral restraint." It is that virtue and moral restraint that nourishes common sense. That is what it takes to recognize the difference between common sense and compassion. Self denial is at the core of that. Obviously we are not all going to agree on everything and so a method to moderate society is required. The legal system serves that function. You might say it supports the virtues and moral judgements of the society. Government has to be the parent! Yes, big brother. I had two, and they could be a pain, but also supported me when I deserved that support. They didn't necessarily teach me moral restraint, although they did on occasion restrain me.

  There are many common sense actions that we are refusing to take because he have confused compassion with common sense. Consider the national budget. 34 trillion dollars in debt and the lawmakers want to increase spending. Ronald Reagan said it plainly enough, we don't have a tax problem. we have a spending problem. We have established legal means for anyone to enter our nation, common sense says he should simply enforce those laws. That's why we wrote them. All of our law enforcement agencies should work hand in hand to enforce all the laws. Common sense! I can see no logical reason why that shouldn't be the the case, yet I hear about that refusal to "cooperate" every day. 

  Right now I'm hearing a great deal of discussion concerning social media platforms. Many I have never heard of but apparently are in the dark corners of the web. Makes it sound like some video game or something, you have to "unlock" certain avenues. There is much discussion about the potential harm these sites may be having on our children. That is being said in an attempt to explain the actins from people like Tyler Robinson. 

 Well you know common sense should be telling parents to restricting their children's access and time on those platforms. I'm old enough to remember when the concern was the "boob" tube. My parents simply turned it off, sent me outside, or told to go read a book. Enough of that for today! Yeah, parents should be doing that. Yes, they will sneak around, I know that. But it is the awareness that what they are doing is somehow "wrong" or harmful" that is important. It was establishing that "virtue" and "moral restraint" that John Adams was talking about. It really is just common sense folks. There are times when you don't "validate and empower" the individual, you simply tell them they are wrong. It's not about hating the person, it's about being compassionate. It's an attempt to alleviate the suffering before it ever gets a chance to infect them. 

                                                                             

  

because you can?

  Exploring a topic that is at the forefront of thinking at this particular moment in time. I'm asking if suffering the consequences of what you post online, on social media sites, is a violation of your first amendment right. Does free speech include saying whatever vile and degrading or disgusting comment you want without consequence? That's the general thought regarding that isn't it? Is that the intent of that particular piece of legislation? Is it intended to shield you from any repercussions, any accountability or responsibility for your words? That is exactly what we are taught. 

  At the same time we have laws regarding libel, slander, and hate speech. You can be held to account for those actions, those forms of speech. Those forms of speech are recognized as causing harm to individuals and punishable by law. In more recent years we have included terms like "offensive" in describing those words or viewpoints. You can be held to account for being offensive. So how do we delineate that? That is the challenge of free speech. If all speech is to be free, we must allow all speech. How do we legislate emotions? That is at the core of this question. 

  To regulate emotions, we established government. The function of government is to govern the actions of the citizens of that government. That is to say to provide a means of redress for wrongs committed against our persons. The challenge becoming defining exactly what actions are allowed and what are not. If what you are doing offends me, but causes no physical harm, or property damage, should that then be allowed? The thing is, emotional damage is as destructive to society as physical damages. Still, we aren't regulating emotions just attempting to regulate the response to injury, provide a tool, a method, to hold someone accountable. And so my thoughts return once more to the question of morality.

  Today accountability implies the imposition of some financial penalty. That's what we hear from all the "firms" advertising there services on television. You can get the justice you deserve! The larger the monetary award the more justice you received! It's progress. There was a time when a person could demand satisfaction. There were actual duels involving all sorts of weapons. It was a matter of honor. We look at that today and think how barbaric that was. 

  But was it? Well it was certainly a deterrent to just "running your mouth" and making unfounded and unjust statements regarding others. There was a time when being incarcerated was intended as a punishment and treated as such. Today incarceration is directed at rehabilitation. There is no reliable data concerning recidivism rates over long periods in history. Prison today is supposed to change the "heart" of the criminal. Being held to account means being told you were wrong to do what you did, but we will forgive you. And you have to pay restitution or punitive damages. You can do that on the easy payment plan! In some situations we have even established funds just for that purpose. Justice is monetary compensation. But more so everyday, justice is becoming the imposition of your morality upon others through legal means. Free speech is one of those methods. 

  If we must justify our actions, should we not also have to justify our speech? We certainly justify our actions by saying things like, it's the law, or it is in the constitution as a right! We have entire libraries filled with books of law. We have codes to follow as well. Codes are a compilation of individual laws. Codes tell us how we are allowed to react. But not all codes carry the weight of the law, some are just suggested. Consider the US flag code as an example of that. That code delineates how we should render respect to the national standard, the American flag. Breaking the flag code carries no penalty however, no legal consequence. It's justified through the exercise of free speech. At least that is what the supreme court has decided. 

  I began by asking if suffering the consequences of what you post online is a violation of your free speech. Personally I do not think it is. I'm thinking the loss of your job or some other punishment. I'm not talking about any physical harm to the individual, no violent response. But, I should certainly be able to express myself, to exercise my free speech as well. If, in the exercise of that free speech it is within my authority to dismiss you from employment, I'm simply exercising that right. If you can burn my flag, I can fire you. You do not have any right to be employed by me. And so I'm thinking this, yes you can be held accountable for what you say. I am not prohibiting you from saying whatever you want, I am not restricting free speech. But free speech does not include freedom from accountability. It is up to you to exercise sound judgement and discretion when doing so. I am restricted by law in my response. Do you have a right to employment? No, you do not. And that's the bottom line. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Many need to learn that lesson. 

                                                                                       

 

  

Consent

 I have written it many times, call it an adage if you like, there is little you can say that hasn't been said before. It is something that came to my attention while composing these blogs of mine. There are times when I enter one into a plagiarism checker, just the fun of it. I'm not trying to sell these posts, not trying to profit from someone else's thoughts, not worried about being sued, just amusing myself. I am amused when that checker matches some of my thoughts and words with the more famous people in the world. After that had happened a number of times that is what I thought. 

  This morning after posting my morning salutation I was scrolling down my page. A meme shows up and I'm reading some of my thoughts written by one of those famous people. Well, it's not exactly the same thing but the premise is the same. "One the greatest tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion and that religion and morality have a necessary connection. " It's a theme I often write about, just not as eloquently as Arthur C Clarke. Arthur identified himself as agnostic. He would neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. Someone who just never made up his mind. I believe in the existence of God and so would debate him on that, but not on his thought about religion hijacking morality. 

  I say that because of the frequent responses I get to my posts assuming I'm speaking from a religious platform, when in fact, I am not. When I'm talking about morality I'm not talking about religious doctrine. Yet, just as Arthur pointed out, many seem to be very confused about that. Religious doctrines have caused some of the most immoral and outright evil acts of mankind. Morality, and the recognition of those moral truths have generally brought those actions to heel. The biggest struggle being the reconciliation of moral behavior with the realities of this world. All religious doctrine, in my opinion, is the delineation of a conditional moral state. That morality is subject to change, what we sometime label as growth. I believe that moral truth remains unchanged across all of history, that moral truth itself is God. 

  We are all introduced to a religious doctrine. When we are children we are taken to church, taught about God and the worship of God. Generally it will be whatever our parents practiced. Some of us will adopt that and retain that allegiance throughout our lives. Others will grow to reject the entire premise. And still others seek a more convenient faith, a practicing of religion that suits their desires. A more comfortable faith. And, of course, you will have those that go to extremes to prove their faith and those that will simply deny everything. Those agnostics, like Arthur C Clarke simply don't openly admit to anything at all. They are the Switzerland of religious folks, neutral. Switzerland does not have an official religion, just like us. Strangely however they are known for their Swiss Army knives. But I digress.

 I was raised in the Episcopal church. Well, the truth is it was the Episcopal church as presented to me by the Reverend Samuel Davis during the 1960's. Today while watching a service from tat same church and pulpit via live streaming, the method, the doctrine, and the message is quite a bit different. It has changed. Indeed some of the fundamental principles I was taught have been "modified" "updated" or "modernized." I can hear the Reverend Davis responding to some of what I have heard and it wouldn't be congratulations! There has been a shift in religious doctrine. For me however, there has been no shift in the moral lesson, it remains the same. I haven't gone in search of a religion to match my own ideals. I just don't feel the need for that validation.

 I agree, morality has been hijacked by religion. It was hijacked many centuries ago by those willing to use that power for their personal gain. Emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides is another adage I like to use. When religious leaders began channeling those emotions to enrich themselves, to gain and hold power, the moral lessons had to be modified. If I am supporting the religious doctrine, I am acting in a moral way. I therefore will be rewarded by whatever deity, power, or God is in control. In short, I will be rewarded. 

  It is the promise of reward that resides at the core of all religious doctrines. What is the reward for living a moral life? For me, I would say it is peace. It is that "peace of God that passes all understanding" that the Reverend Davis so often quoted. And now, at 72 I'm just beginning to understand what that means. It is why we say Rest in Peace. Morality isn't about right and wrong, it isn't about directing others on their paths. It is about finding peace in your heart and soul. If you are paying attention, are honest with yourself, you will know right from wrong. You don't need to be told. None of this is by accident.

  Life isn't just something that happens. Remember when Ilan Omar said, "some people did something" She was attempting to defend her "religious doctrine" against an attack from Christians and Jews. Her religious doctrine contains moral conditions that justify killing others, seeking vengeance and domination. 109 verses in fact. Those doing that will receive a reward! In that doctrine martyrs will be rewarded. Traditionally the promised reward was expressed as receiving 72 virgins. That isn't what the Quran actually says though, just to be honest about that. Still, the promise of reward for immoral acts is there. It's part of the religious doctrine. The crusaders were doing the same thing, although there are no verses in the Bible promising any reward for that, the reward came from where? 

  Morality is that which you do with a clear conscience and no promise of reward. Is morality shaped by your environment? Yes, it certainly is. That was the thinking behind the composition of the Constitution. It was why there was no state religion established. We had declared our intent to just that with a few declarative statements. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - " The consent of the governed. What governs consent? Morality. Everything else is manmade . That's my thought this morning.