Your choice

  Once again I'm hearing about "bad" illegal drugs being sold in the back alleys of Baltimore. They are coming in from Philadelphia. They have been analyzed and contain a powerful sedative used for animals. This drug is stronger that fentanyl! There was another mass overdose event as a result. The conversation has been resumed. How are we going to make these illegal drugs safe? The city already provides free Narcan, by the case to anyone that asks for it. They have people on the street handing it out like candy on Halloween night. There has been an ongoing campaign and PSA's about the dangers involved. But, those drugs are still killing people.

  This time they are saying they are telling the users they are risking their lives using that stuff. Those folks just aren't listening, they keep using those drugs. The only solution is to make the illegal, back alley pharmaceuticals safe for use. Well, because that's what we do today when people continually break the law. We just make it legal and the crime disappears. It has worked great in the past. No one has been arrested for selling pot or using it in over a year now. Sure the dispensaries are creating a bit of an issue in the neighborhoods where they are but there is a plan to solve that problem. We won't allow them in "your" neighborhood, just in designated areas that are less intrusive.

  This making illegal drugs safe for use is a bit of a sticky wicket however. If only there were some method to test the products before allowing them to be sold. Those manufacturing them are not adhering to the safety protocols. We have tried repeatedly to warn users about that but they just aren't listening. Well, here's a thought. How about telling those people that those drugs will kill you! I mean just tell them that outright. That stuff will kill you, we are not providing any antidotes, clean needles, safe spaces to inject yourself, or trying to stop the flow into the city. You buy it, you use and you die. It's on you. The city will dispose of your corpse. 

  I would also propose that when any one is caught selling those drugs they get the death sentence. Period, you sell death, you're buying it! That might slow they down a bit, make them think about whether it is worth it. Yes, some will still risk that. I suspect after the first dozen or so are executed that would change the game a bit. And yes, it should happen quickly. They are entitled to due process and  swift justice. You were caught in possession of that drug, you're guilty. The process now becomes, execution. Maybe shoot you full of your own product. 

  Look I'm just saying we need to change the whole attitude in regard to this. Let's quit telling the drug addicts that it isn't there fault. It is their fault! They are choosing to use that crap purchased from criminals. No one is forcing them to use any of that! It is solely their fault! It is the same thing as guns. Guns aren't the problem, it is people shooting the guns that is the problem. Quit telling those folks that you are there to help, to rehabilitate them, to provide other avenues. Quit telling them how sorry you are, how compassionate and understanding you are, that you are so concerned with them. Instead just tell them this; if you choose to use that stuff and it kills you, that is your choice. It's your body, your choice! As long we continue to treat those folks like some misguided children, provide support and empowerment to them, it will continue. Just say no. You are on your own, that's my attitude. 

                                                                                            

Contrition

  As I grow older I do tend to look back a great deal. Well, I guess that makes sense as looking ahead is a rather limited thing. I'm not certain I even want to take a guess anymore. I find comfort in remembering how things used to be. They were just as I remember them, regardless of what anyone else has to say about that. That is the certainty of memory. If you get Alzheimer's and lose your memory I don't think you will know that, you will have forgotten. Those around you most certainly will know and that will cause them much anguish. I don't like to think about that, but I don't worry about losing my memory because of that. 

 I used to attend church on a regular basis. That changed after I joined the Navy and moved away from home. The truth is it most likely would have changed, even if I stayed at home, but it is a good excuse. I didn't attend real regular as a senior in high school, just an occasional visit to repent a bit. I'm not a catholic so no need to confess to anyone but myself and the lord. It's between him and I. And yes, God is a guy. Over the years I have attended a few services here and there when the occasion dictated that. Weddings, funerals, the grandkids in holiday pageant and the like. I even went looking a few times for a church to attend. As with most everything else I wrote about that and haven't found one yet. Truth is, I haven't been looking all that much.

 From my limited interaction with the church today I have drawn some conclusions. It isn't the same as when I was young. Today it appears to be more about praise and celebration, than about instruction and supplication. As I remember church you went there to ask for forgiveness for your transgressions. It was a forgone conclusion that you had done something wrong, something that required forgiveness. Not one of us is without sin! That point was stressed a great deal. The minister administered to his flock. That meant he was there to help. That was accomplished by pointing out your flaws and weaknesses to you and giving you instructions on how to improve! Beg for forgiveness and try to do better! 

 Excessive praise was considered pandering in my church experience. That's the way I saw it anyway, I can't speak for others. It came across to me as others trying to convince me of their piety. A public proclamation. In my view totally unnecessary as only God can give you that forgiveness, it's a personal thing. As far as celebrating you shouldn't celebrate before the victory. The only way I'll know I was "victorious" is when I enter those pearly gates, then I'll be celebrating. There is a fine line between praise and piety. I question myself about being pious. Silently pious is the same as openly pious. 

  What I see today makes me think the service is more for entertainment. There are churches today that have stages instead of altars. There are bands instead of organs. Far more standing up, singing, arms waving in a show of fervored praise than any displays of humility. Church services weren't entertainment as I remember them. I often left them feeling a bit contrite and taking a silent vow to do better. That feeling lasted a little while after the service. Yes, guilt was that feeling. Does anyone leave church feeling guilty today? I don't think so as I hear all the talk of being "lifted up" and self assured in your faith. I guess the phrase today is empowered. After leaving church I never felt empowered, confident that I would receive that reward. 

  Judgment had yet to be rendered. The judge is adjudicating. Adjudication is the legal process for settling disputes between parties. In church I was taught the law. The issue was in following those laws. I know, and the judge knows, I broke a few of them along the way. So standing there before the judge can we settle our dispute? I don't think you get to negotiate with the judge. You are completely dependent upon the mercy of the court. In this case that court is just the judge, no jury of your peers, no defense team, and due process, well, he's the judge and will decide that as well! I think it will be rather like standing before your parents. You really don't get to say much besides, I'm sorry, I promise to do better. Contrition is your recourse. 

 Thinking about all of that maybe that is the reason things are the way they are today. There has been far too many people that have never experienced that feeling. Too many people that were "empowered" instead of disciplined. Too many people feeling just a bit too confident, a bit too self assured in their righteousness. Well, the judge will decide on that. I suppose if you truly believe this is it, this is all there is to life, it doesn't make any difference. I don't believe that, although I'm not certain exactly what to expect after my body shuts down, what happens to that energy? It can neither be created nor destroyed, trust the science on that one. So, it has to go somewhere, in some form. My guess is that is what the judge will decide. Can I influence that decision? Yeah, I think I can but it has to be done beforehand, once you are in the courtroom it is too late. You are back to contrition as your only means of defense. 

                                                                                 

                                                               But I said I was sorry. 

Political pandering

  I'm not sure how these things get started but the newest one involves Pakistani truck drivers losing their CDL license because they can't read English. I've seen meme's from one extreme to the other. I'm in the camp of how did they manage to get a license in the first place? After retiring from the Navy I worked for a firm that manufactured road flares. I was asked to occasionally make a delivery and a class B CDL license with a hazardous material endorsement was required. I studied the appropriate materials before taking that written examination. When I took that exam it was entirely in English, I don't recall being asked if I needed a translator, or someone that could read for that matter. 

  After passing the written exams I and the driving test I was sent to the window to get my license. I had to turn in my class C license which was valid at that time. Thing was I had to provide all the documentation to obtain that CDL B license. Yes, all the paper work had to be presented, birth certificate, proof of residence and social security. Because I needed that HAZMAT endorsement a background check was required. The fact that I held a secret clearance while in the Navy made no difference whatsoever. I had to pay for the background check and be investigated. And that was for a CDL B license, not a Class A combination capable of driving 80,000 lbs of material down the highways. 

 For that reason I do question how these people manage to get a license. I wonder just how prevalent that really is. Social media does have a tendency to grab onto an incident and create the proverbial mountain out of that. But still, if those people can't read and understand English they certainly have no business driving trucks on the interstate highways of America. Several memes' mention the driver has been driving for 15 or more years and now his family will be devastated! 15 years and you still can't read English! I have serious doubts about that. While in the Navy I learned to recognize some basic words in many different languages. Granted I wouldn't want to be given a map in any of those places and told to go anywhere, I know north and south, east and west, but it wouldn't end up well. 

 Another issue I keep seeing is about those wearing a burka. I see these memes insisting we must allow and endorse that because it is their religion. Well, the thing is here in the United States we do not have a state religion. That was explicitly stated so there would be no confusion about that. You are free to practice your religion in this country. That is to say, believe whatever you want. So, alright if your religion demands you dress in a burka, you can dress in a burka. But if you are the same people claiming ICE agents can't legally cover their faces you are a part of the problem. Those agents feel it is necessary to conceal their identity. Why is that? Because there are those that would attack them whenever the chance presented itself, attack their families as well. Those folks that support inclusion, diversity and are so concerned with the rights of others are a real threat to those officers. 

  There is a sign on the door of my bank, it says, please remove your hat and sunglasses. They don't want you concealing your identity. I was told the same thing at the DMV. There wasn't anyone there wearing a turban on that day. In Maryland they would get a religious exemption, same with the ladies and their hijabs, or burkas for that matter. I could not however claim a religious exemption for my New York Yankees ballcap. Only one religion is recognized for exemption. That doesn't seem right in a country that has religious freedom. That freedom guarantees you the right to believe as you wish, not do as you wish. 

  Seems to me it is a bit of political pandering! Is there some religious exemption from reading English? Should all road signs now have to be in Arabic as well? Or should reading English be a mandatory requirement to obtain a drivers license in this country. Amazing to me, the state of Maryland has no such language requirement. There is however a federal requirement for a CDL. That's the reason these drivers are losing their license. Are all drivers being asked to read a children's book? Probably not. Most likely just the ones speaking with a heavy accent, wearing a turban. That's not profiling, that's predictive. They are the most likely to not be able to do that. When I was in the Navy I was told, try not to look American, in certain ports of call. It's the same thing, a prediction. Americans would be the targets. 

  I'm just sitting here watching the news, following some trends on social media as a casual observer. I'm often amused by the reaction of people to such things as truck drivers. There are some willing to stage a protest, storm the DMV and demand changes. There are others in full support of those drivers, they are just hardworking, dedicated professionals, the very lifeline of America! They don't need to know how to read and write to drive a truck! It's just prejudicial! Most of those folks will have other postings about how bad those diesel trucks are polluting the atmosphere and should be banned. You would think they would be happy whenever a driver is removed from the highway and the planet is being saved. But no, they are upset that the driver is required to read English. Go figure.  

                                                                                     

See Spot. See Spot run. RUN Spot RUN. I don't understand, I can't read that.  

In context

  Today is the anniversary of the dedication of the stature of liberty. Dedicated in 1886, as we all know, a gift from France. Many don't know that the base wasn't included in that gift. The land, then called Bedloe's island belonged to the united states government. President US Grant approved the land use and President Grover Cleveland was there for the dedication of the statue. The name of the island wasn't officially changed to Liberty Island until 1956. In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson made Ellis Island a part of the Statue of Liberty national monument. Several government agencies have overlooked the maintenance of that statue. Currently the National Park Service holds responsibility.

  Funds were required to build the base of that statue. Congress could not decide upon a funding package for that construction. The cost was 100,000 dollars, that is about 3.5 million today. The government simply said, we can't afford that. The public in general wasn't too excited about the project and many congressmen opposed the whole thing. The original intent of the statue was to act as an "influencer" to the rest of the world. That is what France was hoping as France was a  big supporter of the United States and very much admired our constitutional republic. Abolishing slavery was represented with that statue as well, and that is what the influence was hoped to be, freedom. Joseph Pulitzer, the famous publishers headed up the effort to raise those funds. Interesting to note is that there is no record of him ever contributing to that fund. But, the famous sonnet The New Colossus, penned by Emma Lazarus and published by Pulitzer, did raise significant funds and raised an awareness. It's important to remember we only had 36 states at that time. The west was still quite wild. If it weren't were wealthy Americans, it would have never been erected. 

  The structure inside the statue, the steel framework that supports her, was designed by the same guy that built the Eifel tower. The French people paid him for that design work. The framework has to "flex" just a bit to prevent the whole thing from cracking apart. The outer copper sheeting that makes up the actual figure was made by Frederic Bartholdi. It was all shipped to America in pieces, paid for by France. It was now up to us to assemble her. At one time the arm was displayed around the country for fundraising efforts. Remember this was just 23 years after the civil war and money was tight and southern sentiments were still bitter. A giant statue representing America, in New York harbor, celebrating the freedom of all peoples, wasn't exactly a well received idea down south. Political rhetoric ran rampant.

  Today we mostly see Lady Liberty as a symbol of America. She stands for freedom, for America, and a promise. In that famous sonnet Emma Lazarus called New York harbor the "golden door." There was no Ellis Island as we know from history. Immigrants entered the country in Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans, and Boston as well. My own ancestors entered through Castle Garden, New York in 1855. The "golden door" Emma refers too metaphorically, is the opportunity offered in America. That sonnet isn't a policy statement from the United States government! You had to meet certain requirements before being allowed to enter that golden door! Those requirements have changed  over the 139 years Lady Liberty has been watching. The requirements are far less stringent than in the past. Still requirements exist. The Golden Door. It isn't an open door policy! It's an opportunity not a guarantee. Everyone is given an equal opportunity, but equal results are not guaranteed! 

                                                                                      

Emma Lazarus, the author , was a poet and an activist. She was deeply concerned with the Jewish peoples' mistreatment in Russia at that time. Imperial Russia imposed a special tax on Jews and forced their children to attend special schools to indoctrinate them to becoming Russian. That is what was on the mind of Emma in writing the sonnet. As with all pieces of art and literature it is open to interpretation. The context is dependent upon the times. Lacking that context misunderstanding arise.  

appeasement

  The welfare system as we know it today began with FDR. It was in response to the great depression, to provide a safety net for those who had lost their jobs, especially those with children. It is a social program. Yes, socialist policy. The democrats passed that bit of legislation and have continued to expand and support that. It could be said that the democrats and their policies' created entire generation's of dependence! It is a method of control, dependence. When you are dependent upon the charity of others you are under their control. All the democrats have asked for in return is to continue placing them in power; ie: voting for them. 

 Today the democrats are using those "dependent" upon their policies in an effort to regain control. They have lost the majority in the house and senate. Their big plan is to continue creating dependence, this time on a global scale, but they just don't have the votes to do that. As a result they are willing to sacrifice their constituents to gain an advantage. 

 They are throwing those folks under the proverbial bus! And they are trying to place the blame elsewhere. It took a civil war before those democrats gave up on slavery as a social institution. Their response to that was the creation of the sharecropper system. That was accompanied by the denial of rights to those freed. It became known as the Jim Crowe era. The hope was to keep those folks dependent upon them, just as it does today. That's why you couldn't have them folks reading and writing! And allowing them to vote! Out of the question. In 1957 democratic senator Throm Thurmond gave a speech lasting 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the civil rights act. Today, all that is left is the promise of free stuff! The democrats constantly promising "programs" to uplift, empower and elevate  those that vote for them. 

 But first they need to establish a socialist state. The first step being to convince you the we have a democracy. Then having convinced you of that, create a dependence upon that democracy. The social programs being offered will serve that purpose. The current plan is to deny you those programs. The belief is that it will cause unrest, possibly a riot or two, maybe loot a few stores or something, but force the hand of congress. If any law enforcement agencies attempt to stop any of that, they will immediately be labeled as fascists. Only the democrats can prevent that from happening with their policies of appeasement. With their latest actions they may just as well as seceded from the union! It very well may cause serious civil discord. 

  It's an old saying attributed to Margaret Thatcher, the trouble with socialism is that you run out of others peoples money. It is exactly what we are seeing today and at the crux of the current budget crisis. The democrats wanting to continue their social programs by providing services to those that aren't even citizens of this country! They want that global dependence! The democrats want to keep on spending other peoples money! They don't care how far in debt the country gets. When the country goes broke, control can be easily grabbed! Chaos always precedes a power grab! Here's the thinking on that. It's hard to remember the goal was to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators! Nothing gets people more upset than just saying no. And it is the Democrats saying no! They won't negotiate, sign any clean resolution to talk about it, just saying no. We don't care if you don't get snap, welfare, or anything else as long as we get our way! You have to go along with that, or get nothing. Do you understand comrade! 

  Social security and the social programs associated with that were created to help those that had lost their jobs. It was a response to an economic crisis. It wasn't created so people didn't have to go to work. It wasn't designed to be a lifestyle. In fact as part of the New Deal the CCC was formed. That program put people to work for the government. That program was defunded in 1942 in response to WW2, the money was needed for defense. The budget for the CCC had been a contentious affair over the years. Like most government programs it became inflated, mismanaged, and abused. 

 FDR created the new deal. It was in response to the great depression and provided JOBS to many people. It did establish social security as a safety net for the elderly and disabled. Yes, those old old to work and those physically unable to work! It also created a significant change in social welfare. Now taxpayer monies would be used for charitable reasons without the consent of those taxpayers. You will contribute to charity whether you want to or not! Now a dependency has been created under the guise of social reform. You are now entitled to charity, by law! That isn't how charity is supposed to work. 

 And here's a little tidbit for you, when you have socialism that government will then decide what charity you will receive, that is under their control as well. That includes your wages and benefits! The government will tell you how much you can make, and what services you may have. You really don't need that operation or procedure comrade! No medicine for you. The democratic policy is one of appeasement. As long as you cooperate, you will receive your stuff! Doesn't matter if you earned them or not. We will provide you with what you need and more! Just keep doing as you are told. Don't think about it! Just do it. 

                                                                                 

 

The FES

 I was reading an article yesterday and the author used this phrase, rhetorical flourish, in describing some comments that Trump has made regarding the construction of a ball room. What he was saying was it is a matter of semantics. Trump making the claim that every president has wished for a ball room when the facts only support that many previous presidents did express a need for a functional event space. There has been no large space devoted to that purpose alone, a place to hold large scale events. Larger events previously held at the white house were hosted by Joe Biden, and included as many as 400 guests, including the press. 

 The last set of presidential china, used for official state dinners contain place settings for 320 people. It was purchased by the white house historic trust during the Obama administration, Michel designed the pattern used. The current state dining room located in the white house is just a room 48X36 with a seating capacity of 140 people. When that number is exceeded a tent is set up to accommodate everyone. That is one reason for this ball room, a functional event space. 

 The current dining room was office space before being used as a dining room. It was extensively redesigned in 1902. Personally I do feel like it is a bit cheesy whenever we have to set up a tent, like we are visiting our relatives and are asked to bring your folding chair. Just seems to me we should have enough room for everyone. The last state official state dinner at the white house was hosted by Barack Obama in 2016. Neither Biden or Trump have hosted one.

  So why build a ball room? What exactly is a ball? Well, a ball is a formal dance event characterized by a banquet. The dancing takes place after the banquet. You need a large space in order to do that properly. That is especially true when we are talking about a state ball, dinner, banquet or whatever else you wish to call it. It is, in my opinion, a bit shabby to erect tents. This represents the United States of America and yes it should be grandiose. Putting on our best "bib and tucker" to coin an old phrase. This space is being built by the removal of unused office space. Obviously that space isn't needed as their has been no interruption in government services as a result of it being demolished. The congress doesn't assemble in the east wing. 

  I hear much talk about what will this ball room be named? Much talk about how Trump is only doing this to create a legacy. Well the fact is it is only a ball room because Trump is calling it that. What other name could you use to describe a functional event space? Would auditorium be better? What would you name that venue? Being paid for by private donations, should the donors get to decide. Should we hold a national contest to name that facility? Just what should we call it? A ball room or something else. It's a functional event space. The FES! Yes, that's it. We will all refer to that using that acronym. An official event will be hosted in the FES by President Trump upon completion of that FES. You are cordially invited to the United States of America to attend an event. A dinner/dance? Or is it a ball? Well, that depends upon who you ask. It's all a matter of semantics. 

                                                                             

                                               Shall we dance 

maintaining the base

 I heard that snap/ebt cards will not be loaded up on November 1st. A budget deal hasn't been reached and no compromises made as of yet. It would only take a handful of Democrat to agree to, at the very least, signing a clean resolution. That resolution would extend the existing budget for a period of time to allow for negotiations. That has been somewhat the way business has been conducted in the past. A stalemate, a clean resolution and an eventual deal. This time it appears that the Democrats are simply going to refuse to do that. I'm sure they feel they are making a point, standing strong in the face of opposition. What they really want to project is their opposition to Donald trump, his administration and any plan or polices that administration establishes. 

 The vast majority of those that will be effected by this no snap/ebt card denial are those that vote for the  democratic party. Yes, they are using their own base as a tool to apply pressure. They are more than willing to do that with the hope that that same base will rise up and begin rioting, causing destruction and fueling further unrest. It's a very dangerous game they are playing. And make no mistake about that, it is a game to those in congress, a chess match. The news reports all this as the blame game and that is exactly correct. The democrats want to blame the republicans for all of this because the republicans will not cave  to their demands. The republicans are pointing the finger at those democrats because they will not sign a clean resolution to at least provide more time. 

 We the people, the general public, are the ones that all this directly impacts. Those in congress are supposed to be representing our wishes. Does anyone of us want to the government shut down? I don't believe so. The democrats refusing to even so much as agree to an extension of the existing budget are not acting in the interest of we the people, regardless of political affiliation. Everyone is being affected, everyone! Well, those in congress aren't being impacted all that much, as they will continue to receive all their pay and allowances. It sure is easier to take a stand, when you can buy that stand. The democrats have collectively decided that is what they are going to do. 

  What are they waiting for? The republicans in congress have all voted several time to pass that clean resolution. All they are saying is, keep everything the way it is and we will continue to talk about it. The democrats are just stomping their feet like a little child in the candy store, but I want this! Their hope has to be the same as that little child, cause enough fuss that mommy caves and buys that candy bar. My mom was a republican and that never worked with her, no sir, that behavior got iced quickly enough. If there is any civil unrest, rioting, and destruction from this it will be on the hands of those democrats. They could avoid it all easily enough. They don't have to give up their demands, they just have to agree to talk about them. They won't! 

  It's my feeling it is about to get real folks. When you refuse to provide what people feel they are entitled to, there will be problems, big problems. This will highlight just how many people in this country are dependent upon the government. Those having that dependence will not see that as a bad thing, they are entitled. Meanwhile there are those that are paying for all of that, the taxpayers of this nation, we the people. It's something I have noticed over the years, people are quite generous, willing to provide for others, even advocate for all of that, right up until it begins to come out of their purses. Then, things have a way of changing rather quickly. A new perspective is established. Wait a minute.

 Congress is taking a week off. No need to be there when no one will agree to do anything. Personally I'm a bit upset that they are taking a week off. I never got to do that when I had a disagreement with the boss about anything. It was always his way or the highway unless I could convince him otherwise. Taking a weeks vacation didn't get that done. We the people are the boss of congress. We should be demanding that they are at work! 

 The democrats are banking on we the people to create such a fuss, such unrest, that it will force the republicans to capitulate to their demands. Well, for all the talk of our democracy that the democrats are constantly calling our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, that is how democracy works. Democracy is when the 51 force the 49 to do whatever it is they want. In this case they want the 6 to force the hand of the sixty. They plan on doing that by mobilizing their base. And what is their base? The dependent people of America are that base, made that way by the very policies and practices of the democratic party. Without their promise of "free stuff" they have no viable platform at all. It's the only way to keep that base.

                                                                                             

 

it's in the details

  How much of our memories do we create after the fact? What I mean is, as we get older and our past becomes more distant, I believe we begin to fill in the blanks a bit. We really don't remember everything. We tend to remember the central theme of that past, but the details become a bit hazy. It is those details that we begin to fill in later on in life when recounting that past. We create those details and present them as a memory, sometimes we even fool ourselves. The majority will create a happy past, a pleasant time filled with good memories. Given todays mindset of being a survivor and a victim of social injustice, I'm not as confident that will be the case in the future. Perhaps that is what is causing the dramatic rise in depression we hear about on those television advertisements. 

  I thought some about that yesterday after doing some baking. My daughter in law had asked my wife to bake a couple pies for a fundraiser she is hosting. I helped with that, rolling out the pie crust, a part of the baking process I can handle. After having rolled out those crusts, the pies ready to bake, I told my wife about something my mom always did. It can be a bit tricky when telling your wife about your moms' cooking but I waded into those waters anyway. When my mom was done making pies and had some of that crust left over she would make what she called "little boys pies" for me. Now, as I remember it she simply rolled out that dough and sprinkled it generously with cinnamon sugar. She rolled that dough up like a carpet and cut it into 1/2 inch thick pieces. They look like a cinnamon bun. They went into the oven with those pies.

  That's how I remember all of that but some of the details are missing. At least something is missing. When I took those "little boys pies" out of the oven they looked good. As soon as they were cool enough, I snatched one up and popped it into my mouth with all the expectations of a child on Christmas morning. Well, what I got was a chunk of coal! Those "little boys pies" were as hard as a piece of coal. They weren't anything like I remembered them to be. I must have created a memory of them tasting delicious or a memory of how they were made. Whatever the truth is, something was drastically wrong. Needless to say, my wife wasn't impressed. Perhaps secretly it made her feel better. I still ate a few of them telling her about my memories as a child. I wasn't about to admit to any of that out loud. 

  What I remember is more of a Norman Rockwell painting of the past than the reality of that past. I do remember my mom baking and the smell of that. And yes, she did make those "little boys pies" that I would watch baking through the window in that oven door. It was something special, made just for me,  an extension of a mothers hug. That is what I remember about that the most, being told they were just for me. My sister being two years older would just smile and go along with that, although she enjoyed eating them with me as well. But they were "little boys pies" and that was that. As I gnawed at them yesterday, yes gnawed is an appropriate adjective for what I was doing, my first thought was, what did I do wrong? Soon I dismissed that thought, and thought they were most likely that way all those years ago as well. My teeth were a bit stronger back then! But it could be that I am missing some details in exactly how they were prepared. 

 No matter, I just created that portion. I've managed to write four paragraphs about "little boys pies" that I haven't seen in over sixty years. I'm 72 and I'm certain mom wasn't making any "little boys pies" for me when I was twelve, but, it is a possibility. No matter how long ago that actually took place I simply don't remember the details, what I remember is the feeling. Maya Angelou said;" at the end of the day people won't remember what you said or did, they will remember how you made them feel." With that small action, little boys pies, my mom made me feel love. You really can't recreate that, it has to be genuine. It's a good memory. 

                                                                                     

                                      I expect these go by a different name in many households. 

Organic

  My daughter in law asked my wife to make some pies for a fundraiser she is hosting. She just doesn't have the time to do that herself. My wife is always willing to help out. In fact we both miss the days when we were making things for the grandkids when they were in school. The cakes, cupcakes and assorted baked goods. Those years have long since passed. We still occasionally will bake an apple cake, made from a closely guarded family recipe, and some box chocolate cakes that my grandson enjoys. But, in general there is little baking going on around here.

  So, we got down the cookbook my wife has used for at least 38 years now, that was the date of publication. The Pillsbury Family Cookbook that I'm certain is in millions of homes across America. A couple family recipes are handwritten inside the back cover. The apple cake recipe isn't there though, so don't think you can get it there! That recipe is on a 3x5 index card hidden in a safe location, not even those thieves from the Louvre could get to that. We need the recipe for making pie crust. It is always wise to double check that, even when you feel you know it. The ingredients are basic enough but still, you should check.

  I was looking at what was required and got to thinking about that. As I mentioned that book was published in 1987, which doesn't seem to be that long ago to me, I thought it would have been earlier than that. It did occur to me that the ingredients themselves have changed over the years. The names haven't changed just the manner in which they are produced. There is a big difference in that and you have to be careful when selecting them. Pie crust calls for a stick of butter. It isn't margarine! Yes you can use it for baking but the point is, it isn't butter, it is most likely vegetable oil. If you want that pie crust to taste like mom used to make, you need 100% real, honest to goodness butter. Yeah, and grease those pans with lard! 

  I'm not a baker or a cook. I am however, old. I watched my grandmother and my mother cook and bake. I've helped my wife do the same. As a general rule of thumb I've always tried to use the same products that my grandmother and mother did. I smile today as those products are called "natural" or "organic" and cost just a bit more. They cost more simply because fewer people are buying them, the truth is they are actually cheaper to produce. It is all these new and improved products, chemically engineered, that cost more to produce. Yes, it does cost a lot of money to make a vegetable taste somewhat like a hamburger. Chemicals aren't cheap!

  I do find it amusing that all these natural products are now being promoted as the healthy and environmental choices. They always were, it wasn't until manufacturers developed "alternatives" that could be produced in large quantities that resembled the real product that health issues became a problem. I do believe were all better off when what we ate depended somewhat upon the season. That is to say, the fruits and vegetables anyway. That was also dependent upon just where in the country you lived. Growing up on long island my diet was centered around seafood because that was available year round. I've never lived in Montana but I suspect that wasn't the case there, moose maybe? 

 Yeah, I've been around long enough to see the wheel turn. The old has become new again. We are going back to what we once had, even when we weren't aware of how environmentally responsible and health conscious we were. Butter made with real milk and cream. By law, it must contain at least 80% butterfat to be called real butter. Some folks are grinding their own coffee beans once again, quite expensive for one reason only, only a few are doing that. We are being told they are "specialty" beans. Some states are now allowing the sale of cows milk that hasn't been processed. It's risky business I'm told to drink that raw milk. I even saw a thing were it is somehow cruel to milk those cows! I have never personally owned or milked a cow but understand that it is quite uncomfortable for them if they aren't milked, twice a day. 

  I wonder how much longer home baked good will be allowed at these fundraising events. I admit I am somewhat surprised that there hasn't been some restrictions placed on that by now. I don't think you can send home made cookies, cakes and candies to the school anymore. There is a big concern about peanuts these days. I wonder how that came to be, why did so many suddenly developed such a reaction to peanuts? What did those peanuts do? Do you have any hesitation in eating homemade products when you were weren't the one that made it, or know the person that did? I don't hesitate at all, but I am cautious sometimes when I know who made it. Sometimes I wouldn't eat it if you paid me. 

  If you want to make good food you need to use good ingredients. Real butter, lard, flour that you have to sift yourself, and real apples, not stuff out of a can. The best ingredients are those provided by nature, not by the factory down the street. Hey it's organic! Yeah, that's a revelation alright, organic. Now we are making real progress. 

                                                                                          

   when it says butter, they mean real butter. Don't be confused by, "I can't believe it's not butter" It isn't. 

best for business

 Some time back the city of Baltimore "legalized" marijuana. I put that in italics because it remains a federal crime, a felony to use, possess or sell that particular weed. I'm not going to enter into any discussion concerning whether it should or should not have been authorized for use. That argument/discussion ended a long time ago. So, having made that as a thriving business, generating a good deal of tax revenue for the city and state, smoke shops have been popping up. So many that local residents have begun complaining about them. The Baltimore city council is considering taking up the discussion and placing limitations on these shops. 

 The proposed discussion is in establishing a set distance between these smoke/vape shops. The thinking in doing so is to prevent them from becoming urban blight. But blight isn't the real terminology to describe the problem, the building are occupied alright, but the street begins to look more like a "strip" than a street. It is the nature of the business, and the consumers it attracts, that is the problem. There are situations were this inclusiveness and diversity degrades property values and in short, gives the neighborhood a bad name. That is exactly what the citizens of some Baltimore neighborhoods are complaining about to the city council.

  Some years back in the city of Baltimore there was a street, Baltimore Steet. It was known for the bars, clubs and "company" one could obtain there. It was a sort of 42nd street, like New York City has. To anyone that was ever in the service and went overseas it was reminiscent of those ports of call. Usually associated with the seedier side of the city, neon signs, large billboards and crowded streets and bars. It's an enticing environment, full of promise for those seeking, should we call it, unethical consumption? No place for saints there, only sinners. 

 That street has been closed down over the years as the residents became concerned with all of that. The city began to focus on law enforcement in that area. It was certainly justified. Crime and immorality are bedfellows, no denying that. All manner of illegal activity was centered on that particular block. It was simply called, the block. I think most cities and larger towns have one. I was always told, just ask a cab driver. Today I suppose an Ober driver would have that same information. 

 Now the city of Baltimore is being faced with a resurgence of that same activity being concentrated in certain areas. In my view they should have seen that coming, it is what I would have expected given the nature of the business. Really no different than alcohol in that regard, what we now call Alcohol Abuse Disorder, often leads to the same environmental/sociological  issues as the proliferation of these smoke shops. But this time they are attempting to prevent that by placing restrictions on the location of those establishments. You aren't going to change the behavior , so let's just spread it out. Yes, a great plan indeed. The same people that protested, held rallies and fundraisers, imploring and demanding their legislators legalize all of that, are the ones now saying, not in my neighborhood. 

  I'm amused by this as it really comes as no surprise to me at all. I was amused when they tried to convince me that those smoking marijuana were generally just the hard working upstanding citizens  in the city. This legalization would simply destigmatize that usage, could be regulated and controlled, and provide a new revenue stream. That revenue stream would, of course, be used for the children, for education, to provides much needed services to the underserved members of our society. In fact, it was really a Christian act! It's no worse than alcohol! 

  Guess they forgot about Baltimore street and the others strips around the city where alcohol was the fuel for that activity. Alcohol created Baltimore street. And now, they are surprised that smoke shops are doing the same thing. They are also surprised that "vaping" another popular activity they endorsed is now causing health issues with our youth. Who could have foreseen that inhaling flavored vapor into your lungs would be a bad thing. They are also certain that smoking marijuana will not lead people to using other drugs. There is no evidence to suggest that! And besides, you can just get chewable products, or even brownies. 

 All that is completely safe, fine, no problem. All of that is fine, just not in my neighborhood, at least not enough to make you notice anyway. A single low key smoke shop, tastefully decorated is fine. We don't want to give the wrong impression. This is a wholesome family orientated environment. Sure we enjoy using those products but we would rather you didn't know about it. We have it all under control. If we simply spread it out over the entire city it won't be as noticeable. How far apart must those shops be? I haven't heard any suggestions about that but at least a few blocks seems reasonable, doesn't it? Well, as long as we ensure there is transportation available to get those patrons there, we have to be concerned with the underserved, marginalized people in the city as well. What we really need to is a city HOA type situation. You can't do that here. But it only applies to to certain businesses or activities. It just depends.  

                                                                             

The infamous block in Baltimore, Md. It's been "cleaned" up now. Turns out it was bad for business. 

Concerned

 Often times when I comment on a Facebook posting it is met with this question; why so angry. The truth is I'm not angry at all, just expressing my opinion. Ok, so there are times when that is expressed in more forceful terms than at others. Still, I don't classify that as anger, instead I think of it as conviction. And conviction is an important step in the sales process. If you have ever taken a course in sales or psychology that should be obvious. The course I took spelled it out this way. The five steps to the sale. Conversation, curiosity, conviction, desire and close. The conversation is the original post, that's why you post something isn't it? The purpose being to start a conversation. I was curious and so I read that. I answered with conviction! Rather like saying to the salesman I don't need a new car. Then it is up to the salesman to create a desire in me for that new car and close the deal. 

 I think the problem we are having today is that people really aren't that committed to what they are posting. Many are posting just for the reaction that post will garner. Others are posting in an attempt to gain followers, to become popular and respected, if only in their own minds. What is lacking however is any conviction that their statement is valid. That's why they struggle to support that opinion, often citing others with advanced degrees, or social popularity as proof. They can not really discuss the topic at all, they have little knowledge beyond that opening statement. And perhaps most disturbing of all is when I see the same individual posting opposing opinions on the same topic depending upon the audience. You really do have to believe in the product, that product being yourself. 

  Do I have followers on Facebook? I suppose I do by some measure, not my own. I really have no clue about any of that. I have a friends list, surprisingly long to me, I don't recall many of the names on that list at all. I don't think of every person on that list as a friend per se, just folks I have agreed to interact with over a period of time. I have been on Facebook for a couple decades I guess. Only in the last few years did I begin to not accept friend requests because of scammers and those with bad intentions. Have I made any friends on Facebook? Well, that depends upon how you wish to define a friend I suppose. I enjoy having far more acquaintances than I do friends. I really can't "share" all of me with that many people, and if you are a friend of mine, that does require a closer personal relationship. There are times when I share me with others  and that's when they ask me, why so angry. They're angry because my opinion doesn't agree with theirs.

  I do think that we have become more of an aggressive society in general terms. I've written about that several times describing what I call polite company. What I'm talking about are the social dictates I was raised observing compared to what is being promoted today. Possibly the most glaring, the most obvious is the choice of language we use in public today. It isn't just the common people either, politicians and others in a position of authority just let fly with that language as well, It's a verbal assault! I've been aware of this psychological ploy for many years. Even as a kid I knew that there were those guys and gals that would use coarse, vulgar and threatening words in an attempt to intimidate you. Yeah, the tough guys talk like that. That was in full bloom and display while I was in the Navy as well. And today you might hear that in the halls of Congress, or indeed on the chamber floor!  

  Many are confusing that with anger. It isn't anger at all, it is insecurity. It is the need to be accepted, or at the very least make others afraid of you. This need is increasing as we become more "civilized" more "advanced" and "progressive" in our society. The need arises because we are surrendering our independence in favor of  convenience, safety and the removal of accountability. We are being bombarded with a simple message, over and over again. You can't do that on your own, you are a victim, and deserve so much more. You are being treated unfairly and unjustly. You should be angry! Very angry! You probably should seek help.

  I'm not angry, I'm concerned for the future. It's the same concern my parents had and each generation before them. My concern centers on the America I grew up in and love. An American that was focused on American values, traditions and cultures. We were certainly interested in other cultures, as a matter of curiosity. We weren't adopting those however. We seem to have forgotten the reason we rebelled and formed our nation in the first place. It was to be independent, to establish a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, those people being Americans! We declared our intentions  and established our constitutional republic for Americans. 

  It wasn't about popularity, it was about being independent. That applies to people as well as nations. When raising our children what is it we all wish for them? For them to grow up to become independent, responsible adults able to take care of themselves. To grow up accepting and understanding the responsibility being a citizen of this great nation. Yes, it is a responsibility and one to be taken seriously. Yes it does come with certain perks, entitlements and benefits, but those must be earned. The constitution was created to protect those rights from government while providing for penalties for non-compliance as well. If you are a bad citizen, bad things happen to you. Not too difficult a concept to grasp. 

                                                                                        

the internal you

 The popular opinion. From the most non descript persons, like myself, to the most well known celebrities , the most popular opinions are being expressed. The big differences being all a matter of opinion. Does having celebrity somehow make your opinion more valid than others? Is your personal popularity a measure of your intellect? The more popular you become, the smarter you get? Not having enjoyed any significant degree of popularity myself I don't have any reference point. I haven't even known anyone that was vastly popular or remotely famous in any way. I was never drawn to any of that. This moth never sought the flame.

  I do question those that align themselves with these celebrities when it comes to opinions. I wonder do they actually believe that or just feel that having a celebrity "endorsement" makes the product superior. Isn't that why we pay those people to endorse our products? And ironically we are all aware of that, they are being paid to say whatever, although a frequent ploy is to tell you that they would do it for free. We even passed legislation that requires the advertiser to state, this is a paid sponsor. In other words, they may or may not believe/endorse or use the product. They are simply paid to say whatever they say.

 I'm always just a bit suspicious of people who make their living pretending to be someone else. It's entertaining, no denying that, an entire industry dedicated to creating fantasy, a multi-billion dollar industry. But we shouldn't lose sight of a simple fact, it is make believe, not the real world at all. And those players, well, they are being paid for their roles, their ability to deceive you. For me, without a personal relationship with those individuals I just can't take them too seriously. Their opinion on products and politics leave me unimpressed. 

 I am aware and have to accept begrudgingly that they do set the popular opinion for the most part. Whatever ideas they endorse will be embraced by their fan base and used as "proof" positive. They are the people that chase popularity, that crave that status and recognition in some way. Those that need the spotlight, however briefly, to satisfy some inner craving. They follow fad and fashion to a great extent. Most of those folks will mature with time and curb that a bit. Others will continue that chase their whole lives. The objective always seems to be to attract as much attention to themselves as possible. They are the ones that join the crowds in protest or celebration. The point isn't the "action" it is in belonging to that popular crowd, even when the popular crowd isn't so popular. Riding the bandwagon is of utmost importance.

  I do hear a lot of talk about being your authentic self these days. The message is to just tell everyone your personal business. Your authentic self, is your private self. It is never a good idea to live your life in public! Doing so always opens it up to scrutiny, ridicule, criticism and debate. Take the current narrative of being "proud" of your sexual orientation. Being your authentic self in public. Just how is that being met? If you're meeting me, I will tell you exactly what I think about that, and you aren't going to like it. I will not offer that opinion unsolicited however, not in a public setting. I only share my authentic self with those I choose. It does take a while for me to open up to others regarding personal affairs, some things you just don't need to know. It's not deceit, it's common sense. 

  Being your authentic self means what? It means you will not conform to external expectations. You are willing to just say, no. It means you will sacrifice popularity for your truth. Yes, your truth is the truth! It is when you are genuine, authentically yourself and self aware. You can't change your truth like changing your socks, and expect others to take you seriously. When you are authentic no proof is required, no endorsement, no paid sponsors. When you find yourself searching for those things, rethink your truth. 

 The truth stands alone. And something I have noticed is, those that are truly authentic often stand alone. Sometimes they become heroes. Well, heroes in the traditional meaning of that word. Admired for their courage, integrity or personal values. People to emulate. Heroes were a rarity sixty years or more ago. They remained heroes for a simple reason, their personal lives weren't scrutinized. That's not true today were every aspect of a persons life is an open book. We are examining that "authentic" self. The result is always the same, a fall from that hero status. The authentic self is your private self, the internal you. I'm just saying it is never a good idea to put that on public display. Be careful with whom you share that person, only a few will accept that person, most are looking for an accomplice, not an equal partner. 

                                                                                  

                                                    Authenticity is a lonely business. 

                                                                                              

For US

 " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

This morning I thought to offer my view of an interesting topic concerning the "rights" of all people. I often hear and read about those that feel that rights are being denied to those migrants wandering into our country. The argument usually being the constitution says, all men. Well, it does say that in more than one place but it is important to understand grammar and composition. The above paragraph should be quite familiar to any citizen of this great land, it is the preamble to the constitution. 

 The preamble is the foundational statement upon which the constitution itself is written. It is a simple declarative statement. The first six words alone define the purpose of the constitution and to whom that applies. We the people of the United States. Notice it doesn't say it applies to "everyone" not even "all men" it applies to the people of the United States. That means the citizens of this country. It doesn't include the citizens of any other country on the planet. It applies solely to the United states of America. The rest of the statement states just why we (the people of the United States) are establishing and ordaining that document. 

  There are human rights that apply universally to all men and women, human beings that is. Those rights do include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right for you to pursue those in my country. In fact, by the establishment of a nation I can deny those rights to individuals when they unlawfully enter that nation. Some nations do deny your life if you cross their border! The vast majority will just deny your liberty and happiness. That is accomplished by imprisonment. Others, like our fine country will simply send you back where you came from. If that makes you unhappy, well, that's just too bad.

  In that preamble, where we state we are going to create a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, it means we the people of the United States, it means Americans! The constitution was written, established and ordained by the American people for Americans. It was when we said, no more King! It was the establishment of our Constitutional republic. A government of the people, by the people, for the people as stated by Lincoln during the Gettysburg address. And to be clear who are those people? The American people! That's because that is who the constitution applies to, not everyone else in the world, just the American people.

  Human rights and constitutional rights are completely different things. Our constitution does protect and ensure your human rights in America, as a citizen of this country, that is true. That constitution does nothing to protect you when you are in another country, either legally or illegally. That is dependent upon the diplomatic relationship the United States has with that country. You will be treated differently in North Korea than you will be in France or England. Your "human rights" will be defined by their government. That's just how it works in the real world. 

  Did you notice it says, "ourselves" and our "posterity"? Yes, it applies to us, no one else, just us. It's quite clear that was the intent of that document and declaration. It was to establish our country, with our laws, with our traditions, culture and ideals. Divine providence was paramount in establishing this nation. The founding fathers often spoke of that. Washington said: " of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports" 

  They concluded the Declaration of Independence with this statement, "for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine providence" making it perfectly clear what their beliefs were. Prayer is a personal thing, an appeal to the divine, for personal intervention in the affairs of whomever is doing the praying. In this situation, our nation is collectively praying for us, the United States of America and its' citizens. 

  We were facing the the British that had the most powerful Army and Navy on the earth at that time. Yes, divine providence was definitely going to be required. The prayers for divine providence was for "We the people of the United States" Seems perfectly clear to me. It does not apply to anyone else. I wasn't praying for anyone else to be granted a thing, no it was a completely selfish plea. That was the intent and remains the intent. That prayer was answered and we gained our independence. Then we ordained and established our constitution for, you got it, we the people. It is still for we the people, not the other guys. For US! 

                                                                                       

No kings

  So I hear we are back to having no kings. Protests are being organized. Yes, isn't that something. Well, when protests are organized events you do have to wonder just who is funding that. It's quite a bit different than any spontaneous protest against some policy or action. This whole "no kings" narrative is just silly. Of course we don't have a king, we have a constitutional republic. Three branches of government. Thing is when the congress can't seem to function for whatever reason the executive branch does have certain powers to continue governing. The congress also has the power to overrule that executive branch when they feel it is warranted. The judicial branch just serves as an advisory council, issuing their opinions on the constitutionality of legislation. 

  You know when the colonists began organizing their protests the King called them revolutionaries. Just a bunch of whiners and malcontents. They organized a revolution! And where did the funding come from for that? A man named Haym Salomon and another named Robert Morris where big financiers of the revolution. The countries of Spain and France also contributed significantly to that cause. What actions precipitated that? We all know about taxation without representation and how that is tyranny.     Yes, it was money that started all of that. And so who is financing these organized protests today? I can't say for certain but I do know whoever it is, is expecting a return on their investment. I suspect they, and yes it is more than one, would really like to set themselves up as the King. They objective here is control, that is the purpose of these organized protests, to apply enough political pressure, to cause civil unrest and start a revolution. The only difference today being that group not openly proclaiming they want to establish a new country, no they embrace and cherish our Constitution, out freedom is of paramount importance. They just want a new interpretation of exactly what that constitution says. 

  Well, you know the constitution was written 237 years ago and they didn't have Google or AI to help them with their citations. Those writing that couldn't have known about migrants, borders and international law. And we know they were all bigots and highly prejudicial. But today we are certain when they wrote "all men" that it meant exactly that, all men no matter their preferred pronouns or country of origin. They didn't know about all the other genders either! If you are on American soil, no matter how you got here, you are entitled to every protection afforded by that constitution, bill of rights and every single law of the land! 

  Imagine a nation with independent sovereignty. It has sovereign right in the name. That implies a King or Queen doesn't it? Sovereign does mean, a supreme ruler. The supreme ruler in America is that constitution. A constitution that I and millions of other Americans have taken a oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. In that context "all" does mean exactly that, all. There is no King here. So what exactly is the no kings protest protesting? Donald Trump is the short answer. This is what the official website for these protest claim, "protests against Trump and his administration's abuses of power, cruelty and corruption"  In other words the Republican party. The Democratic party hasn't done anything wrong, ever, no abuse of power, no cruelty or corruption. 

  Beyond all that though just what is the goal of these protests? The hope is to rouse the people to revolt against the Republican party. The last time that happened we had a civil war. That was when the Democrats were worried about losing their slave labor pool. Man, that sure was hurting the bottom line. They seceded from the union in a "no kings" protest. They basically rewrote our constitution, even calling it the Constitution of the Confederacy. Slavery was a protected right and states rights were elevated above the central government. As we all know that didn't work out so well, a lack of finances and support, along with a lack of resources doomed that to failure. Plus having brothers shooting at each other created a bit of an issue as well. Not right away, but when the reality of war hits, you begin to reconsider your choices. The democrats have been licking those wounds ever since. 

  What is the big issue right now? Well, we are deporting illegal people from the country and who is going to pick our vegetables. The republicans are also refusing to fund those illegals in the country, refusing to fund LGBTQ+ programs in foreign nations, refusing to provide transgender surgeries for convicted felons in our prisons, and probably worst of all, banning books to kindergarten children regarding their sexual identities. And not only that the republicans are refusing to sign legislation to allow electric vehicles to use the HOV lanes even when their is only one occupant in that vehicle. If it is electric, saving the planet, it should be given special consideration and allowance. Those democrats are refusing to sign any agreement that doesn't allow that! Hey some things you just can't compromise on. 

 Electric is King! Wait, we have no kings in America just democratic policies that should always be approved and adhered to. If they aren't, we won't sign any legislation, we're shutting down this government and protesting. We will blame the republicans. 

                                                                                        

An actual King in his electric car. I think he can drive in any lane he wants to because, well he's the king. 

                                                                                 

Passed on

  I got out some of my holiday decorations. These are what I think of as fall/thanksgiving decorations. I do not decorate as much as I did in years past. Now that I'm a great grandfather the "kids" have all long since been on their own and the grandchildren are as well. Grandpa's house just isn't the same anymore, just us two old people living here. But still I have those decorations that I do treasure. The majority of them are hand made items. My wife crochets and so a great deal of them are made in that fashion. I "help" with what I can, gluing googly eyes on or making a stand for them. I made a small display of them yesterday.

  This morning as we were having our morning coffee we began talking about those treasures. We do have a good number of like items that we inherited over the years. Hand made items from grandmothers, a great uncle, my mom, my wife's sister and a few other ancestors. I'm not sure how that came to be but I seem to be the one that collects these things. They gravitate to me. I have written a couple of blog postings about that. I am concerned about what will happen to those things after I'm gone. I can't bear to think they would wind up at a Goodwill store or the landfill. My wife suggested we should start giving some of things to family members. Pass them on. My immediate reaction to that is, after I pass on! Giving them away today seems a bit premature to my way of thinking.

  I do make a conscious effort to tell others about my treasures. I even started making a catalogue of them, a sort of journal explaining what each item is, what it means to me and who it originally belonged to. But that was a project I started and it stalled somewhere along the way. I don't know where that journal even is at this time. The thing is, the vast majority of the items belonged to people that my family members never met or knew. I was in the Navy for twenty years and moving about. I didn't return to my hometown after that, there was no hallmark moments like on those television specials. As a result what my family hears are just stories of some old people that I knew. And none of them were famous in any way, just regular folks. Just names without faces. 

  I have done quite a bit of work on the family tree. I have gathered photographs of all the ancestors. I have been lucky enough to have gotten a few through the computer from others on Ancestry. Distant relatives of mine that I didn't know about. I was happy to put those faces with the names. It somehow seems to make the person real. It's strange how that can make me feel like I am familiar with them. Grandmother Clara, Grandmother Kathleen and my third great grandfather Abraham. All gone long before my birth but now at home with me and I feel like I know them. It has made me aware how you can become attach to "objects" when you know who owned that object. It's like having apiece of them somehow.

  Thanksgiving and Christmas are the sentimental holidays for me. The focus is on the past more so than just a celebration. I think that is probably true for most of us. I remember more about Thanksgiving and Christmas than I do of any other holidays on the calendar. It's the big dinner and the big morning. It was special as a child when I had to get dressed up for dinner, we used the special dishes, and you got to eat whatever you liked, not necessarily those vegetables. When I was a kid football hadn't become a part of any of that celebration. Dinner was usually about three in the afternoon. And Christmas was surely an exciting time and those mornings are etched in my memories. Yes it is a sentimental time from Halloween to New Years day. 

  Wouldn't it be great if you could pass on those memories. But you can't, they are uniquely your own to be enjoyed and shared with others. That's what those treasures mean to me. They are a means to pass on my memories, hopefully to be repeated to future generations. It's a selfish thing really, but not a bad thing in this case. There are times when we should be selfish. Sentiment shouldn't make you sad, it should enrich you. Sentiment should be like a warm blanket, comforting. I understand that isn't always the case with some folks. I do want to pass those memories and sentiments on, I just want to wait until I'm passed to do it. Hopefully that won't be too late. 

 

Trust

 Random Thoughts and Memories : "Nun Ya "

  If you click on the above it will hopefully take you to a blog I wrote some time back, fourteen years ago. My thoughts on that subject haven't changed. I was just reminded of that when I heard about the reporters leaving the pentagon. They turned in their passes, packed up their stuff and left. The issue being they didn't want to agree to a confidentiality agreement with the pentagon regarding what information they would have access to. They believe that access should be unrestricted in any way, why it's the first amendment, freedom of the press and apple pie! So on their way out, carrying their boxes, a copy machine and some old pictures they said, we will continue to report on everything we can. In my view they just basically acted like small children throwing a fit in the toy store. 

 The last time I talked about this it was in regard to Bin Lade. You do remember that don't you? Remember when our special forces eliminated him? The press and the general public began demanding photographs and other proof. There was a big uproar over all of that. Thing was, he was eliminated from the playing field and that is all I needed to know and all the general public needed to know about that. That's why the title, "Nun Ya" because it really is none of your business. I feel the same way about those reporters and the pentagon. There is some information that is none of your business! Yes, it is that simple and direct. 

  I was in the Navy for twenty years, I held a secret clearance at one time but I couldn't see top secret documents. You know why? It wasn't any of my business. That secret clearance allowed me to look at the building plans for nuclear and conventionally powered submarines because, I worked on submarine systems, repairing them. I needed to know that stuff. When I no longer had the need to know, that clearance was withdrawn. I certainly didn't storm out of the building grumbling about that, it was just common sense. So why these reporters feel they should just have carte blanche access to military secrets I can't understand. They don't need to know everything. And the thing is this, if those same journalists weren't constantly leaking sensitive information, broadcasting every move our military plans, they wouldn't have to be restricted. They brought that upon themselves. They can not be trusted with a secret! And that's the bottom line.

  This is the main sticking point:  "The policy stipulates that when journalists receive and publish unsolicited classified or sensitive information from government sources, they are “generally” protected in doing so by the First Amendment.  But “if you solicit the disclosure of such information or otherwise encourage [Defense Department] personnel to violate laws and policies concerning the disclosure of such information, such conduct may weigh in the consideration of whether you pose a security or safety risk.” Credit The Hill publication for that statement/explanation. 

  Isn't that exactly what I'm saying? If you can't be trusted, you can't be trusted and access is restricted or denied altogether. The press feels like they should have unrestricted access to roam the halls of the pentagon like sharks circling a sinking ship, waiting, looking, listening for that big news, the news that will make headlines. National security, confidentiality, and safety be damned, just get the story! It's quite evident and has been for some time now the press doesn't act in the best interest of the public or the nation, it's simply business to them. Get the ratings and make a profit. Journalistic integrity?

 It's nonexistent. I have no doubt that the press would report in great detail any "secretive" information they became privy to. Remember when Dan Rather presented four fake documents concerning George Bush's military service? Do a Google search and you will get a list of 12 disgraced reporters. Can the press be trusted? No, not at all ad that is why the pentagon asked for that promise. A simple agreement to report responsibly, honestly, and not revel things of a sensitive, safety or security nature. But like a pack of children they just cried; I'm telling! 

The Top 12 Journalism Scandals Since 2000   They don't care if it is the truth or not, whether that information could cause harm just will it benefit my career as a journalist. So what if others have to die because of that reporting, I got the story. 

                                                                                 

                              This is why you don't allow reporters to just wander the pentagon halls.

                               They can't be trusted.