We are abandoning what made America great

 My father was an immigrant.  He did it legally; he got citizens to guarantee a job, filled out all the necessary paperwork and waited for approval.  He came to this country with hopes, a job to earn his keep, and a desire to make a life for himself and to help his mother (a widow) and his sister.

He also came with a vision of America.  He often told me that he knew people here were different... from many parts of the world.  But he also said they (and He) came here to become a part of what America was... a blending of many nationalities that came with a common desire to become "better" than they could in their "home" country.

Dad respected his birth country, Norway, and honored the people there.  BUT he always pointed to his citizenship papers and was proud to say he was an American... not a Norwegian-American, but just... American.  He came here not to reproduce Norway, but to become a part of what America is all about.  And he saw people joining in pride to be part of that whole.  

Sure, many nationalities upon arrival banded together to make their adjustment easier, even as their children went to school and became proficient in English, history, and learned how to succeed in America... and to be proud of belonging.  

My father loved music and he often made the analogy comparing America to an orchestra.  All classes of instruments are different, and the players have different abilities as well as individual attributes.  But they come together knowing the purpose is to advance the performance of the orchestra.  They are segregated by instrumentation, they play different parts, they interpret music in varying ways.  But all that individuality is voluntarily subjugated to the conductor's direction and interpretation to create a whole... a whole musical offering that sees the beauty of the unified effort and vision.

THAT was the America that welcomed (well, mostly.  Even "square heads" were joked about and not always welcome in the beginning) his presence and his willingness to "take a chance" and depend on his own self-worth and the quality of that effort.

Today, many in America want each instrument to not only "be in charge" of their music, but to declare that to not get their own way was an insult and a lack of respect.  That seems true within the instrument category and withing all of the instruments in what used to be an orchestra.  That "orchestra" has turned into a group of anarchists producing chaos instead of music and not even being in the same room without throwing words (or worse) at each other.  The Conductor has been "cancelled" and two attitudes have taken over:

• victimhood, and
• tribal narcissism

Add to that a foolish and false belief that there are no such things as consequences, and the result is disintegration of all that enabled America to become the great nation it once was, as President Reagan once described it, "a shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world.  It (or at least the politicians and self-described leaders) has destroyed itself.

Just as chaos of individualism absolutely destroys the purpose and existence of an orchestra, so the current narcissistic victimhood tribalism ideology will destroy the United States of America.

Sadly, Reagon's city on a hill is being destroyed from within.  I miss it, and my father would feel even more disappointed were he still alive.

Will there ever be any limits to defining "abortion?"

 There was a time in America when the killing of an unborn child was considered both a sin and a crime. Today, it is considered a simple "option" by any women who sees the results of her enjoyment of sex as "an imposition." That view was not acceptable then. But it is now. On that basis alone, may I suggest that what I now suggest may seem extreme and unacceptable now, but may very well be public policy in less than 20 years:

Since a child is not viable and able to live on its own even after birth and the mother is seen as responsible for it until it reaches its majority (with a few select exceptions), it would be consistent that, just as an unborn with a defect may now be terminated, why should not a child that develops an illness, has mental deficiencies, or is diagnosed as a dangerous psychopath be able to be killed by the mother,... at her sole discretion? After all, isn't that the power that women who currently become pregnant have right now in states that legalize abortion while the child is still in the womb... even if only the feet remain there? If there is to be equal protection under the law, that there should also be equal NONPROTECTION under those very same laws?

Make a note of this and be prepared to revisit it in the light of developments in the next two decades. Logic applies and, as separate but equal as a concept fell in the last century, so will the current protection wrongly granted to minors when denied to those in the womb.

A secondary challenge is that almost all who favor allowing the killing of children in the womb simultaneously oppose the killing (the "death" penalty) for those convicted of murdering others. That is clearly illogical. These are usually the same people who repeat the mantra, "follow the science," which recognizes the humanity and viability of children in the womb. That relegates the "non-personhood" argument and artificial and denigrating term "fetus" to the curb. Science says that the "fetus" IS a human being and shows that it senses and recoils from pain and danger.

An argument that says a child with no record of any action or choice may be legally killed by the "mother" but denies society the right to kill a person that has murdered and/or raped and or caused the death of another intentionally is just beyond defense. None has ever been presented... at least not to me. If there is one, I'd like to hear or read it so I can "understand" the argument.

Simply saying that one person's existence being a "complication" or "burden" to another has never been seen as a defense to a charge of the second murdering the first... and simply creating a definition that claims to state a difference is spurious at best.

No one has ever responded to these arguments with either logic or reason. All that comes forth are personal insults, gestures, and obscene language or simply walking away without offering any response. Understandable... but sad.

The Supreme Court has done all of us a favor. They put the question of killing babies in the hands of secular legislatures throughout the country, where it belongs. Why? Because although I see abortion as murder, it is the right of the majority in each state to decide on the character of aborting babies, and when. The will of the majority of the people should rule. I do not suggest that makes the act right, but if a citizenry decides to legalize abortion, it should clearly be the decision of that very group, state by state. And that decision, and its ultimate consequences, should be clearly on the heads of each voter and each state legislator. (And I understand and sympathize with their angst at having that burden cast upon them. It was easier when any blame or consequences rested on the Supreme Court rather than on them. But that was wrong, and now they have both the right and the obligation to rule.)

Statistics have corrupted America

 Statistics, of and by themselves, are inconsequential.  To properly understand and use them, one needs to know who compiled them AND their (or their organization's) agenda...and there is always one.

America today is slowly but inexorably crumbling under what is euphemistically called "social" justice and "racism."  It is supported by those who use the concepts to attain and retain power over others...NOT to be either "social" or "just."  Funding anything or anyone because of so inconsequential a thing as "skin color" is not only silly...it is demeaning.  How dare anyone argue that skin color correlates to ability or value?  That is moronic. One might as well argue that hair color, foot size, or height is such an indicator.  

Those who disagree with me point to statistics to prove that discrimination exists with regard to skin color.  NEWS FLASH: we all, of all backgrounds and origin, discriminate every day.  We associate primarily with those who make us feel most comfortable and with whom we agree on most things.  Many of us have deep feelings and arguments ( I think of them as discussions) about the matters about which we disagree...but when that is done, we  USED TO REMAIN FRIENDS.  I still have acquaintances who feel the same way.  But many have faded away.

Why?  Because Social Media (a false term, as it is primarily an attack vehicle and NOT to better society or make people more sociable) has lured us into judging the value of a person by their position on just one thing.  We have forgotten how to appreciate and value the whole person as separate from his or her position on any one topic. How shallow and obtuse can you be to make such an error...or is it purposeful?  If you can shut down any but the opinions and beliefs you hold dear, and chose to do so...as the Political and Social Left is currently successfully (to a large extent) doing in America, how soundly based can those beliefs be?  If not tested, how can you be prepared what challenges may arise in the future.  Imagine if the concept of a flat world had been supported by refusing even the utterance of the idea of a world that was round?  What if the concept of using anything but horses for transportation had been suppressed?

The very power of the Left today would never have developed if the efforts now being made by them to control communication and people had been applied to THIER ideas and concepts.  Yet they feel no shame in working to eliminate discussion of challenges to their policies and beliefs.

If America had stayed true to the concept of America as "The Great Melting Pot" all would be well today.  Immegrents used to learn language, social skills, and behavior so they could become a part of America...not create a mini-version of the country they left. If America had remained focused(and would again focus) on PERFORMANCE and EXCELLENCE as well as HONESTY, all would still be well.  But we did not.

Why did so many immigrants come to America when they knew they would initially be looked at askance by citizens who distrusted their "difference," their allegiance,  their appearance and their language?  After all, THEY weren't brought here as slaves, were they?  Why did they come?

Arguably it was because they saw greater opportunity to EARN a better live in America than where they originated and wanted to BECOME AMERICANS.    They WANTED to ASSIMILATE, and become a part of America.  They wanted to value themselves the way Americans valued people.  That attitude has apparently vanished in today's America.  No wonder the Republic is under attack.

Statistics (were you wondering when the title of this piece was going to make sense) have been used to eliminate the concept of "The Melting Pot" and "assimilation" from becoming "an American."

Keeping statistics about employment, wealth, crime and anything else creates the assumption of causality between the categories used. That presumption is and should be considered false unless proven...and that has not been proven.  Why not proven?  Because they are tracking two SYMPTOMS, not causes.  Race doesn't cause crime.  Color of skin doesn't cause crime, or stupidity.  Neither does hair color or style, foot size, or nose shape...but if we started to track those with statistical precision, someone would argue causality so that they could get support for increased control, power or financial benefit.

Instead, most young people in America today have become hyphenated Americans instead of assimilating: they are AFRICAN Americans, IRISH Americans, HISPANIC Americans...  What nonsense.  My father came to America so that he could TAKE A CHANCE for success; no guarantees, no certainty.  He left the country of his birth because he wanted to have a better life.  We all have that opportunity.  If an American feels that he or she cannot succeed and achieve in America, they have the right to research and find such a country and move there to TRY to achieve their dream. Those who are descendants of African slaves could chose to emigrate to a country in Africa, become part of a visible majority and have no reason to suggest that skin color somehow inflicts a disadvantage...but few do that.  That suggests that they do have opportunity in America that is greater than anywhere else and can be achieved through effort and accomplishment.  And despite the race-baiter who claim to be "leaders," they have proven very capable of such success...in business, in law, in our Supreme Court and in political positions of power.  Any suggestion of lack of opportunity to TRY is demonstrably nonsense.

As for America, if we stopped keeping statistics on Race, skin color, age and country of origin, like the Irish, Germans and those from the far East and worked at "assimilation" we would in a remarkably short time again become a nation of Americans who respected and valued each other as individuals in total, not just one belief or skin color or political ideology.

Stop allowing profiteers in ALL walks of life from using statistics to lie to us about our motives and beliefs. Stop schools from indoctrinating and get back educating and being able to be challenged and respond intelligently, not dismissing and censoring.

Start once again promoting excellence (in ALL things) and achievement as the basis for gaining education, wealth, acceptance.  Equality of OPPORTUNITY, NOT RESULTS is the goal.  Consequences of failure cannot and will never be avoided...only occasionally delayed.  

If we all wake up to these truths (not "woke"...whatever that dog whistle term really means), the Republic can not only survive, but thrive and move forward.  I pray that will happen. 

Hatred of People is an abhorrent display of the worst of human nature

 Do you "hate" anyone?

Why?

My Dad once, when I was discussing what my benefits would be if I tried to do a particular thing, responded that I should never consider "what I would make or accomplish" as a first question.  "What do you mean?" was my response.  He said, "first, ask what is the cost or the effort needed, then ask if you have the time, effort or the money and if you can afford to lose the time, effort or money.  If the answer is that you can't, then don't bother with the consideration of what you might gain...you can't afford it."

If one considers his or her "hates" it is likely that the "why" has very little to do with the soul or essence of the person, but is about fear of the effect on the hater of the beliefs or the actions of the person they claim to hate.  And the basis of the fear is immaterial; it can be behavior (speeding down your road) or politics (favoring policies you find threatening) or something else.

Hatred also reveals a mind out of control, under the influence of the "flight or fight" emotional response that drowns all trace of logic and inevitably leads to unfortunate consequences.

All homo sapiens are of "mixed" instincts and behaviors.  The worst of criminals or psychopaths has performed some (perhaps singular) act of kindness or goodness, while even those among us who we consider "saint-like" or "good" has some secret (again, perhaps merely a singular) act that is sinful or abhorrent.  All or nothing appellations are simply doomed to be inaccurate...and inaccuracy of judgement leads to bad decisions and unwanted consequences.

Also...hatred, when exhibited, demeans the hater and demeans and brings disrespect on his or her beliefs or arguments.  It is not attractive. And it is never productive.

Perhaps the next time you think, or say, "I hate him (or her)," it would be well to pause and consider what is causing you to be fearful or threatened.  Is it an actual act by the person?  Is it something they believe, or something or some action that they support?  Because that same person may also be in favor of any number of things that you also favor and see value in...if you hate the person, you are hating those things too.  That is illogical and flawed reasoning, so it would be well to think it through.

Hatred displaces logic and loses arguments on the merits.  When someone with whom we are arguing starts calling you names or resorts to swearing, that person has lost the argument and fear of that has directed him or her to insults rather than reason.  Hatred is just an extreme extension of the same.

Our lives on this earth are short enough.  Do any of us really have enough time to waste on "hating?"  Frankly, I pity those that "hate" and just refuse to spend time listening to or spending time with them. Many can argue, disagree, discuss and even if unconvinced can still respect each other and be civil...perhaps even be friends...even while honoring differences in our lives and minds, and those are the people I want to be around.  How about you?

How to keep lies from destroying the American Republic

Whines!  Groans!  Cheers! Jeers!  Wringing of hands and dire warnings abound...all over the internet, with particular targeting of "Social Media."  THAT is a misnomer, if I ever saw one...it is NOT social and it is NOT civil.  Social media isn't even truthful, except seemingly by accident.  Not many "thinking" people disagree as to the falsehoods that abound on the internet.

The same complaint(s) are becoming rampant regarding the media, with particular attention on what is euphemistically called the "news" media.  The term "fake news" appears everywhere, both truthfully and falsely applied so often as to make the label ineffective as either a warning or a label (truth in anything, including advertising and public relations, is a rarity).

Politicians and their supporters (does that end up labeling over 90% of our population?) add to the lack of candor, having expanded their falsehoods from campaign promises to include actions and positions actually taken while holding office.

So...is this unacceptable?  If so, to who (or is it "to whom,"...I never did get that right)?  Is there any desire...a heartfelt desire...to change this and return to a more truthful existence for all of us?

It would be nice to believe that such a desire exists.  But...how?  Here are a few ideas to consider...and feel free to think up additional and (hopefully) even more effective ways to accomplish the goal.

First, the so-called "news" media have to be forced to tell the truth and/or label their lies as lies.

Second, internet posting of any kind has to be able to be tracked to the person or organization that is commenting.

Third, all media (including that labeled as "news") has to be made legally responsible for falsehoods.  It is time to, in the interest of Justice, to eliminate the qualification or claim of "absence of malice."  If a person in private life can be legally made responsible for libel and/or slander, so should the "news," whether it be broadcast or print.

Is there any real reason why our people, our country, our government cannot pass laws that require all comments, all stories, all reports be attributed to real people and real organizations so they can be held accountable?  Is there any reason why anyone should be free to repeat slander or libel just by quoting another person?  That should be unlawful unless the person or organization repeating the story has independently verified it with attribution...not anonymously.

Why shouldn't a person that defames another be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind anonymity of the internet?  Require that identification of those posting be available, so that there can be confrontation, both personal and legal.  I see comments on "social" media and in stories that, if the commenter were made public and had to repeat the comments face to fact, would never say the things that they have posted or written.

As I grew up, I was advised to live my life, and speak and write, as if everything I did and said could appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow; think and consider before speaking or writing or acting.  So many today thing there are no such things as consequences.  Or, if there are, that someone ELSE will suffer them.  It is time to stop that thinking.  Time for the chickens to come home to roost...

If the voters demand this and insist that the internet providers not be allowed to censure but that all who use the internet be identifiable and legally liable for comments and statements, we can again enforce a degree of civility.  But...we have to want to accomplish that and take action to demand that.  Will you?

Are the "Hate Crime" statutes attempts to by-pass the Constitutional guarantee of free Speech?

For three quarters of a century I have been angered by many events that centered around the exercise of free speech as guaranteed by the American Constitution.  Most were personal events that occurred after I had gotten to voting age and had to endure what I considered bad language that not only was often physically impossible but also un-civil.  These offended my perception of what communication should be in any civilized society.

Then there were general public exercises of offensive behavior and speech that seemed to violate existing social norms.  Included in this list, was the burning of the American Flag and the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas, at the funerals of fallen servicemen.

I admit to a visceral anger at such behavior, and the wish for the power to put such activities to an end.

On reflection, while there was great danger in any preemptive prohibition on speech and/or action that did not encourage actual physical harm to others, it seemed that in cases where a case could clearly be made for damage being inflicted on innocents or others those who were injured should have the right to restitution.

Logic suggests that the courts, SCOTUS included, have wrongly and carelessly expanded the definition of "free" in free speech to include freedom from consequences of that exercise.  A careful consideration of the concept of free speech seems to clearly mean that the founding fathers wished to prevent the preemptive prohibition of any person from stating a case on any subject that they found compelling.

There is no action in this world that does not have consequences for those committing actions...or speaking words.  ONLY in America are people allowed to insult others, call them vile names and, in the case of politics, actually lie about accusations and behavior.

In any moral sense, this is wrong.  Certainly any person can comment or accuse, but isn't it just common sense that there needs to be truthfulness in the comment or accusation?  Absent truthfulness, shouldn't any person...rich, famous, poor, unknown...be able to call any such commenter or accuser to make the victim whole?  What social, moral or governmental purpose is served by allowing reprehensible language.

Note that I see such action as being in civil courts, and never as being based on statutory laws.  This should never be in the criminal realm.  Why?  Because then the government is given control of determining what is acceptable or not.

I abhor the passing of "Hate Crime" and "Hate Speech" legislation.  The activities specified are already against the law and the courts have jurisdiction and those engaging in such actions can be punished for their actions.  Frankly, the motivation for abhorrent behavior is not of importance and certainly should not the subject of governmental definition and intuition.  As far as speech is concerned, the Constitution is clear on it being allowed.  I certainly would allow action to recover provable injury from such speech...as long as it was in civil court and the judgment made by a jury.

Hate Speech statutes seem only to be a means for the Federal Government to "pile on" for largely political purposes when some crimes are committed.  That is not reason to create more power and put it in the hands of the level of government most removed from the people.

Has the United States become "Balcanized?"

After much effort and planning, my father emigrated from Norway to the United States in the early 1920s.  He first had to arrange a sponsor, then get a written guarantee of a job, save money so that he would not be a burden on the government, show that he had a place to live when he arrived and finally, upon entry, go through a physical exam to show that he was not bringing with him any communicative disease(s).  He told me he never thought that these requirements were burdensome, wrong or illegal; they were good, common sense requirements to protect both the United States and him.

He spoke little English, but those he lived with and worked with immediately began teaching him English and he enrolled in Citizenship Classes to prepare him for the Citizenship Exam.  He...and all who attended those classes with him...came to America to become "Americans."  He honored his birth country, Norway, and taught me to do the same...but he emphasized that he hadn't come to America to make America into a "little Norway,"...he had come to become a true "American."  He wanted to, and believed in, assimilation.  He and all the other immigrants that he came to know were anxious to become a part of the the miracle that was the United States of America...a country where one found the freedom to try to succeed in ways not available to him in Europe...and understood that that freedom came with the possibility of consequences of failure, too.  That was the trade-off: freedom to strive came with no guarantees other than the right to "try."  And he found that if you failed, you had the opportunity to try again.  And he did.

Dad loved visiting Norway in later years, and being with old friends and acquaintances...but he never failed to exhibit a sigh of relief when he came home again to America and say, "it's so good to be home again"...he was an "American."  Not a "Norwegian-American."  And he was both proud and thankful for that.

As I was going through school I was surrounded by kids also born to immigrants...from many different countries.  We got to know and appreciate each other and each other's national backgrounds...but always there was the attitude that those backgrounds were nice, they were part of "us"...but they were incidental; we were Americans.  We appreciated and we abided by the rules and the laws of America...and expected everyone to do the same.  Those who broke the laws and the rules were outcasts...not by any command or written edict, but automatically by their disregard and disrespect for the essence of "America."

Sadly, my observations reveal that this "America" has largely disappeared and is well on its way to extinction.  First, I see multitudes (particularly in the Southwest) who have not come here "by the rules" or legally.  Second, I see many groups refusing to assimilate, keeping to groups from their country of origin continuing to speak the language of their country of origin and refusing to even make believe they are trying to learn English.  Third, a majority of today's immigrants still hold allegiance to their country of origin and not to the United States of America...and attempt to make America into a "mini" version of their country of origin, even to the point of disrespecting the American Flag and flying the flag of their birth country.

 Most importantly, I see the Federal Government of the United States of America actually supporting these activities, aiding and abetting this lack of assimilation.  And the result is that the United States of America has become increasingly "Balcanized."  As Europe originally did in areas of the Caribbean and South America, areas of the United States now seem less like America and more like small versions of other foreign countries...America has disappeared.

The Federal Government no longer truly protects our borders or control who comes to America...and then takes action against border states that attempt to fill the need for that protection and control, leaving the citizens of those states unprotected and at risk.  Add to that the actions of some major cities that put the welfare of those who surreptitiously and illegally cross into this country above that of lawful citizens.  Arguably, those elected officials in those cities are in abdication of their oaths of Office...but neither the citizens of those cities or the Federal Government seems to care...at least not enough to demand that that be stopped.

America is losing its identity...and amazingly a great number of our citizens do not seem to mind or care.  Thankfully, my father has passed away...otherwise these actions would insure his dying of embarrassment for the country he adopted as his own and loved more than where he was born.  And I am embarrassed for my country's abdication of its character.

"Words"...or "actions"

Children aren't taught this anymore, but I grew up to the mantra, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  And it was a factual comment.  As I grew up, I learned to listen to words for understanding, learning and as an indicator of the the nature of the person speaking the words.  For anyone who wants to learn, words and the manner of speaking reveals a lot.  Words contain promise as well as threat.  Words provide nuance that is available for the listener who wants to hear it.

Actions, however, provide no choice.  They simply "are" and the results cannot be changed.  Actions can hurt as well as provide pleasure.  Of the two, actions are the most immediately dangerous.  Words, if used to deceive or misdirect, are just as dangerous...sometimes more so...as actions because they, unlike actions, can seem to promise even as they deceive.

A person who lies lacks both honor and character and is to be avoided.  Above all, such a person should never be allowed to have power or authority over you.  But such a person, provided that they are aware of their lying, is not the most dangerous.

The most dangerous of people is that individual who not only lies successfully to others, but who also lies so successfully to themselves that they no longer are aware of their own dishonesty.  Why is such a person so dangerous?  Because they actually exude a sense of belief in their lies that can be very effective in convincing or conning the listener...they come across as believing what they say and there is little defense against such a presentation other than research and verification.

Today children and young adults, particularly those who attend College or University, seem to be indoctrinated with the concept that they should never be challenged by words or ideas which they have been taught or either wrong or hurtful.  They have absolutely no emotional callouses; they are ill prepared to evaluate or research ideas, much less challenge them.

But even more concerning is that these young people seem now to consider the "nicety" of words and ideas to be more important that honesty and actions; they are less insulted by those who lie to them and fail to fulfill promises (provided that the lies are phrased nicely and in a complimentary way) than those who speak bluntly and are not "politically correct" (which is clearly an oxymoron).  For those who know the "Music Man" play and movie, they would honor the smooth talking liar for his ability to talk and accept the lack of honesty...and then consider themselves superior for so doing.

How can we, as a nation, accept such perverting of our values?  How can we allow our children to grow to an age when they must become self-reliant while we allow a government that we elect to spend our children and grandchildren into financial ruin?  By what reasoning do we allow our children to be indoctrinated to value "group think" and "avoidance of (or even absence of) consequences" while we fail to teach them that any person or government that is strong or big enough to give them anything is also big and strong enough to take everything away?

One of my own grandchildren has become a victim of this American failure.  I am embarrassed that I was not aware and did nothing to attempt to provide some counter instruction.  I am embarrassed for all of us who assumed a dedication by our educational and political systems on the part of those who educated and who have and continue to rule us.  Our cost of our negligence will be visited upon our descendants and, if justice is served, we will be reviled by those who come after as narcissistic cowards who failed our offspring.  I would apologize, but those would just be words...I have already allowed others to throw the sticks and stones.

Blame the "Protectors" but not the "Doers?"

It often appears as if the so-called civilized world has lost its mind.  One of the recent news articles said that those who erroneously allowed the truck driver in Nice onto the road where he killed so many people were being blamed...at least in part...for the deaths.  The anger in France...or in any country where terrorists act out...should be focused on the terrorist(s), not those who do their level best to protect others.  The French are not alone in their apparent desire to ignore the actual "doer" of the atrocity in favor of attacking those who were trying to prevent such occurrences.

In America, I have seen minorities "cop and attitude" with police when approached for almost anything.  In an era where minorities have ambushed and assassinated police, those who serve as police are logically on alert.  When they approach someone and issue an order (such as "don't move your hands" or "keep you hands where I can see them") and that order is not obeyed, I know of no logical person who wouldn't react as if there were a developing threat and react accordingly.  But in the aftermath of these events, even our President accuses police of "overreacting" ...or even of discrimination.

Today, in America it is not hard to get a cop fired.  This administration will virtually require local police departments to punish and/or fire any officer who is complained of by any minority.  The logical action, then, would be to behave very quietly when approached by any member of the law enforcement community and then bring it to the attention of the police department and the Justice Department.  Instead, some just insist on not obeying commands and/or mouthing off as they move their hands in ways that could constitute a threat.

Who is blamed?  Why, the law enforcement officer(s) of course.

Over the years, I have been approached by police nine or ten times.  Each time, I responded as I would have to any person with authority: directly and politely.  Was I uneasy?  Sure...in some cases I wasn't sure what I had done wrong, in others I had been speeding and was chagrined that I had been "caught."  Another time there had been a "hit and run" and I was questioned if I had seen a particular color and make vehicle.  And one time, coming home from school, I had a brake light that wasn't working.  Big Deal?  Not really.  Life goes on around us and sometimes we're the hammer and other times we are the nail.

What I don't understand is why the human race seems bent on allowing those who initiate behavior that results in consequences feel that it is appropriate to deflect consequences on the responder instead of the "doer" who's actions began the whole thing.  I can understand how the people involved would like to accomplish that...but not society as a whole, each member of which should know better.

Why the protest against Patriotism?

Our schools and many of our politicians today want to do away with patriotism.  Even the courts seem to agree.  Schools no longer start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the National Anthom, something that use to be the norm.  Why?

I know of no other country on earth that provides the combination of opportunity and the lack of a "class" attitude that prevents individuals from working to accomplish great things.  Many of our largest, most profitable, most generous, and most innovative companies were started by people who came from low or middle class backgrounds and who accomplished much without even completing a college degree.  It was their effort and accomplishment that was rewarded.

And it was rewarded by the United States of America and its economy.  No other nation state provides the opportunities for individual success that does America.

Yet there are apparently a sizable, if not a majority, of those who control education in America that deem America a "bad" entity; who take every opportunity to focus on her faults and ignore her strengths.  Not satisfied with that, they work to cease teaching our children to value the good that exists in America; they often extol the belief and economic systems in other countries, arguing that America is bad because it doesn't proved equality of accomplishment and pay to every person who resides (note that citizenship is not a factor) in the country...or even visits.

These individuals and groups ignore that no other country provides the opportunities that are available to every citizen of America.

More important, they ignore that many countries and ideologies in the world seek to destroy the entity that we know as America.

Why?

If they know of another governing entity that is better, why not extol it factually, providing the basis for all citizens to evaluate their point of view.  Why do they use subterfuge and flawed emotional arguments to eliminate competition in schools, rewards for excellence and diminution of accomplishment as a basis for grades...and even arguing that grades or performance is "hurtful."

These people seek only to destroy the United States as a shining example of individual achievement when given individual freedom.

Why do we allow them to hold office, positions of power, and honor them with acceptance?

Have we become a nation of "victims?"

Once upon a time (and, no...this is not a fairy tale) America was a country full of people who "did" things.  Our forefathers never ever expected to be given anything; they expected to live or die on the basis of whether they succeeded or not.  And many did die.  The actual number of people that died as America was settled and then expanded west is unknown...at least I have never seen any estimate supported by good research.  Those who survived accomplished amazing things.

These people were of all kinds: kind, cruel, gifted, lucky and all sorts of other mixes of character traits.  The common trait, however, was that they had only themselves to rely on and that meant they had to take responsibility for the path that their lives took.  They were doers...NOT watchers.  They acted.  They acted to accomplish goals: to eat, live, support their family, to defend their family.  None of them...that survived...expected this to be done for them.  They didn't sit around waiting for someone else to support or protect them.

Very few people of that frame of mind exist in America today.  Those that do are vilified as cruel, unkind, uncaring and/or racist...in addition to many other terms of disrespect.  Why?  For two main reasons: 1. that sort of attitude is embarrassing to those who are supported by government handouts and if acknowledged as a good thing would leave the recipients feeling "less than";2. the politicians who use the "giving" of other peoples' money to those who don't achieve in order to "buy" their votes and thereby remain in office do not want that fact...or the fact that they usually never keep their promises...highlighted, lest they lose their position of power.  I can remember the days of the Community Chest and local Churches and Charities taking care of the "deserving" poor.  Yes...I said "deserving."  Because in those days every town and county had hard working folk who had disaster visited upon them unexpectedly and were as hard-working as any other member of the community...they deserved help.  Likewise, every town had some who were poor out of lack of effort or impulse, making a career out of looking for a hand out.  Those folk were never indulged...except for the "elitists" and Progressives in town who were rich and make themselves feel worthy by ostensibly giving funds to any poor person providing it could be done ostentatiously...in public.

Today's America is populated by an increasing number of passive and active "victims."  Almost half now receive money from the government that has no basis on their contributions to government programs, like Social Security.  That is money that was paid by the recipients over past years, and that is repaid by the government now on the basis of how much you contributed during your working and productive years.  No...I am talking about reverse taxation, unemployment, welfare and the like.

There was a time when a majority of people who found themselves in a position to have to take such support were embarrassed to do so; they knew that they hadn't earned it, and looked forward to getting back on their feet so that they could take pride in living off of what they earned.  No such embarrassment today; in fact, there is a certain pride and braggadocio exhibited by those who are "stealing" tax dollars from those who do work and pay the taxes that are so blithely redistributed by politicians.  And the majority allow this sort of attitude...even applaud it.  I find it disgusting.

The same goes for defending ourselves.  We allow the government to abandon guarding or enforcing our borders.  We make excuses to not hold those that attack us accountable, thereby keeping from having to react in any forceful way to eliminate such attacks.  A majority sit around as if there is nothing to be done...except to chant mantras and call for peace and love.  I remember a saying common when I was growing up: "God helps those that help themselves."  One didn't sit around moaning about something...you did something about it.  Maybe you failed, but you tried.  You didn't whine about it or mis-characterize it for some unrelated agenda item.  It wasn't about words.  It was about doing!  Victims whine.  Independent free human beings act, and take pride in that fact.

Too bad that America has forgotten how to do that.

Has America stopped respecting and being governed by the Constitution?

My generation revered the Constitution.  Beginning in grade school...and right through High School...all kinds of History classes were linked and compared to the Constitution, comparing and contrasting it's content against other governments in other times.  The Founding Fathers were also shown great respect for the thought and considerations they embodied in the Constitution, and than the Bill of Rights...and even the declarations and wording of the Declaration of Independence.

Not so anymore.

My grandchildren to to highly ranked schools, several now in Middle school, one in High School, one in College.  They had almost zero teaching centering on the Constitution.  Any time spent on the Founding Fathers seemed designed to find fault and to "bring them down" to a level that was disrespectful of their person's and, by extension, their work product.  Their teaching seems designed, through criticism as well as neglect, to create disrespect for the "idea" of America.

Today technology seems to rule.  Technology is a wonderful tool, although I often think that the young people of today have become too dependent on it; they don't know multiplication tables in their head, they often can't do simple math and need a calculator, a slide rule is an unworkable puzzle to them, and except for the math "nerds" Algebra and the solving of simultaneous equations might as well be Greek (and don't get me started on languages and vocabulary).  They can't write legibly...even printing is questionable, and they can't "problem solve" without "Google" or "Bing" and they are lost if the internet goes down for even a moment.  They "text" to each other even if in the same room, and walk down streets and malls blind to the actual world around them.  Most don't know their elected officials on any level, have no idea of how any government actually works, can't create a budget, read anything that takes more than 3 minutes, and can't be bothered to be civil to anyone.  Discuss the assumptions that the founding fathers had when they started to consider and create and write, and you get puzzled, confounded faces.

The concepts of "opportunity", "consequences", Pursuit", "earning", "civility", "responsibility", and "respect for others"...among others...is foreign to them.  They are familiar with the concepts of "being owed", "privileges", "my rights", "someone else's fault", and other narcissistic traits.  Their schooling (not sure if that term is appropriate any longer...perhaps indoctrination would be more truthful) and their experiences as they went through their school years have indicated that this is the way to look at life.

"Someone" has done these folks a disservice.  And that "someone" is us...all of us.  Oh, I could write for hours on the Progressive infiltration and present control of the entirety of our educational (Yeah...right!) systems, from Kindergarten (note the Germanic origin of the word...our school system is based on the Prussian Model that was intended as much for indoctrination and regimentation as it was for any real education.  Basic reading, writing and math was fine, but independent problem solving and thinking was not desired) through Doctorate Level Degrees and the application of Alinsky's Rules to turn out intellectually inadequate "graduates."  I could point out how many of the High School Graduates today cannot write a cogent sentence, cannot spell, cannot do simple math without a machine, and are unable to concentrate for more than 3 minutes on anything before wanted and...in some cases...needing to consult "Facebook" or the like.

But what is most disappointing is that it is our collective fault.  The not-so-slow disintegration of our society has not been done in secret.  It has happened out in the open and ... although couched in ways and terms that seemed legal, civil, and considerate at the time ... we all knew that we were allowing a diminution of our ideals and allowing avoidance of the concepts of "right" and "wrong."  Oh, we had excuses.  We had "reasons".  The end results was that we gave up the concept of standards and the expectation of "striving" in favor of the lowest common denominator; of not wanting anyone to "feel bad" about not being first.  And we gave up on the standards assumed in the Constitution to be a constant...that of "earning" one's way, of suffering consequences of bad decisions, of recognizing that there is such a thing as failure...and that one can actually learn from it and use failure as a sign-post to success.  This is the kind of thing that a study of the Greek Empire and the Roman Empire would have revealed to our children and grandchildren.  Such an understanding is essential to being a good citizen, whether having a College Education or not...but it no longer is taught in our Grade, Middle, and High Schools.  Oh, an occasional perceptive teacher who is dedicated to his or her students' well-being and success in life may include some portion in the course of a semester or year...but not many do, some because they themselves are not aware of its importance.

Is it too late to save the "idea" of America?  I want to believe that it is not, but...when close to 50% of us are living on the Government's tab rather than on what we have achieved and earned on our own, and that Government tab is creating what is approaching Nineteen Trillion ($19,000,000,000)Dollars in debt, it is hard to see any way to repay it without telling a lot of people, many of which will be determined voters if you take away their "free" stuff, "NO!"  Madison and Jefferson warned about the dangers once any democratic form of government served a populace who discovered they could vote themselves money that they didn't earn.  I fear that we are now there...

Iran Nuclear "Agreement": final comment

Our Congress is going to repeat the their abdication of their oath's of office.  Just as they passed the Healthcare Bill without reading it, they now are going to allow an agreement that was fashioned in a manner designed to give Iran an express lane to both nuclear weapons AND ICBMs while also releasing Billions of Dollars to help Iran fund terrorism around the world.

The Administration continues to claim how tough this agreement is.  Really?  Even they acknowledge that they have not read ANY print, much less fine print, of the side agreements that the IAEA and Iran have signed and which are incorporated by reference into the multi-party agreement now being considered by Congress.  So, if Congress were really doing its job, it would refuse to even consider the matter as the entire agreement has NOT been submitted to Congress and the Administration admits that neither they or anyone on the negotiating team have seen these "secret" agreements.

No sane person would ever sign an agreement that did not state in writing ALL the conditions.  Would you sign a car loan that didn't say what constituted being late on a payment?  If you were told you had 30 days, but suddenly two days after it was due and while your payment was en-route they repossessed your car, would you be happy?  But it would be your own fault for not insisting that ALL the terms were there for you to read and understand.  But this is what Congress is doing, however, and they are being pushed by our Administration, which is saying, in effect, "Trust me...and them!"

Viewing Iran's behavior over the last 35 years, there is no basis for any degree of trust.  And this agreement has nothing in it that can be verified as requiring timely effective inspections.  So it is toothless and ineffective until or unless provisions to the contrary are shown in writing.

Yet our duly elected representatives are going to drink the Kool-aide; they will fail to over-ride the President's veto of their probably disapproval of this farce of an agreement.  And Iran has already stated, through their leader, that Israel will not exist within 25 years.  That is NOT an empty threat.  And with the ICBM development that this "agreement" allows, America will also be in range.

When the mushroom cloud does occur, a proper memorial should give credit to every administration member and elected member of Congress who did not vote to stop this farce.

"Deflate-Gate" Idiocy

Our President has established...or perhaps I do him a disservice and he simply reflects...an attitude in the country where no one is ever responsible or suffers consequences for anything.  The NFL for some reason never had officials in total control of Game Balls.  Seems like an oversight to me.  And not a particularly egregious one, but an error nonetheless.

But that error was discovered last year in a manner that threatened to bring mirth and derision down on the league for failing to oversee one of the most critical tools of the game...the ball.  What to do?  What to do!  For some inane reason, "Our Bad!  We'll fix it!" did not come to their collective minds.  Instead, they focused on how to blame someone...anyone...else.  Who could they possibly put on the hot seat that already had erred in the past (ala the guy who already has a record so everyone will certainly believe that he transgressed again)...Hello, New England Patriots.

The League made a bunch of assumptions (always a really bad beginning for any action): 1) that the "under pressure" was deliberate; 2) that the staff of the New England Patriots reduced the pressure; and 3) that Brady both knew and condoned it.  Of course, there is no proof of any this.

If you inflate balls indoors, with warm air, and then take them outside into winter or late fall weather, the air pressure goes down.  That is why we have to re-inflate our auto tires in the late fall and winter.  If the balls were inflated indoors to the lower legal limit called for in the rules, as soon as they were taken out to the field, that pressure would drop.  No rules were broken.  The League didn't have any provision requiring or even suggesting that the officials check ball pressure prior to or during a game.  Is that New England's fault?  I have no recollection of anyone proving that any ball-boy or anyone else on the Patriot's staff did anything with the ball pressure.  Did any confess?  If so, I missed that headline.

Finally, I have 5 friends who played Quarterback at various levels, up to and including top University teams.  All of them say that they could not tell pressure in a ball: a ball they liked in cold weather sometimes turned out to have higher air pressure than another that they did not like.

As a side note, some point out that Brady "destroyed" his phone when he got a new one.  Well, he had given the league the emails that he thought had anything to do with the matter before, and he was fully aware of how easy it is to get data off any electronic device even when you think you have erased it, so his decision to completely destroy his phone after he had gotten a new one seem like good common sense to me...and I am not a star subject to a desire of many to know the most insignificant details of my life.  He did a smart thing.

So...this action by the National Football League is not about Justice, ...or Punishment...as much as it is about their desire to save face and direct attention away from their failure to supervise game balls properly to someone or something else...and it was the New England Patriots turn to be in the barrel.

No longer Checks and Balances on Congress by SCOTUS

Laws no longer mean what they say.  Congress no longer need concern itself with careful and accurate writing and wording.  The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will plug the breach, intuit the "real" intent of Congress while ignoring the actual wording of the duly passed statute, and save the day.  Of course, there is a consequence for this service: SCOTUS has now re-affirmed its move from co-equal branch of Congress to a second rate arm of Congress. We have ceased to be a nation governed by laws and now are dependent on a political class that continues to fund the courts as a sap to many who wish to continue to delude themselves that there is a check and balance against Congress. Anyone with a brain recalls how Congress "crowed" about the condition of creating a State Healthcare program as a prerequisite to getting Federal Funding. They tried to blackmail the States and it didn't work, so now they went to their underlings, the Supreme Court, to absolutely legislate from the bench and eliminate holding Congress responsible for its actions. "Umpires" indeed...if so this is the Black Sox Scandal with the Umpires bought off instead of the Players.  Does anyone question whether SCOTUS' budget request will now be granted in full?

There is a serious question of the legitimacy of any government structure when the laws mean nothing and can be interpreted as a politician wishes, instead of obeying the clear reading of words written and voted upon.  This is the result of the political class coming to adopt the Bill Clinton plea of "It depends on what the meaning of is is."  So many laughed as the absurdity of that comment, even as it turned out to be legally effective...and so we began to slide down the slippery slope of making honesty and truth and consequences immaterial in the American political world...and have also just made them immaterial in American life generally:  now it is apparently acceptable to narcissistically focus on getting "free" stuff even as we all know that someone is paying for it...as long as that someone isn't "us."  How delusional...and how clearly designed to ultimately destroy our country.  Khrushchev will turn out to have been right when he claimed we would destroy ourselves from within...he is chuckling in his grave right now.  Deservedly so.

Do the American People even want real Freedom anymore?

Oh, I know everyone wants to do as they wish.  But that is not Freedom.  Freedom is not license and it is not lack of consequences; Freedom is the right and even the obligation to take charge of your own life, to make decisions for yourself, and then suffer or be rewarded for those decisions, learning from your experience and growing in the security that you did do that yourself.

What and how the government operates has little effect on thirty (30%) percent of the population; about 15% will never want or achieve independence or be much concerned with freedom; and about 15% will never be stopped from struggling for independence and freedom, despite any government or other attempts to make them dependent.  But the remaining seventy (70%) percent of our population can be and are influenced by both laws and by what seems acceptable in general society.

For years, biblical morality was the general norm.  People understood, even if the laws didn't say it outright, what was acceptable in society and in public action and discourse...and they abided by it for the most part.  Men didn't swear in a proper public forum or in the presence of women; women didn't use foul language when in public (what and how they spoke when with other women has always been a mystery).  Men held doors for women to enter first, parents disciplined their children as they saw fit, and children were expected to be seen and not heard.  Not always codified, nonetheless there was a certain level of behavior that was expected.

And one of those expectations was that every person would earnestly try to successfully earn a living for both himself and for his family; that being "on the dole" or receiving assistance from family, acquaintances, a "Community Chest" organization or the government was an embarrassment and to be avoided if at all possible...and, if not, to be repaid or to get off of any assistance as quickly as possible.  Such proof of lack of independence was a sign of both failure and or loss of Freedom of existence.

Again, this attitude was not necessarily codified...but it was enforced by public perception.

None of this appears to remain true today.  Oh, there are some who give lip service to the concepts.  But actions speak louder than words.  And legal decisions seem to encourage and buttress concepts that consequences are politically incorrect; that there is no bedrock of "right" and "wrong"; that an inability to support oneself is not embarrassing or to be corrected, as someone or something else owes you a subsistence.

When the government creates a support system that actually results in reducing your earned income if you take a job instead of remaining on government-sponsored and created programs, thus punishing you for wanting to actually earn a living, the vast majority of the public quickly adjusts to the new attitude that working or earning a living doesn't matter...that government will be your "big Daddy" and take care of you.  How utterly appalling, disrespectful, insulting as well as destructive to the individual and society at large.  And how absolutely it puts the country on the path to destruction, as that kind of support ultimately runs out of money even as the percentage of citizens growing up to expect such support grows toward 100%.

And yet young adults all around me seem blissfully unaware of the inherent dangers of dependence on others to survive.  They also have a narcissistic view of what is important in their world.  Certainly there are some who battle this view...but they ultimately abandon that instinct because 1) of the influence of their friends, or 2) come to see the injustice of their being required to support so many who could but don't work.

So a very good case can currently be made for the proposition that, other than in words, the American people care not one wit about their Freedom and are totally prepared to be dependent and be controlled by any entity (currently our government) that will provide an acceptable level of subsistence and not hold them accountable or enforce "consequences."  The failure to accept personal responsibility and hold to moral standards of conduct seem eerily reminiscent of the historical descriptions of the fall of both the Greek and the Roman Empires.  Perhaps our country will prove the exception.  I, at least, am not counting on it.

Is the concept of "Consequences" being eradicated around the world?

Sometimes I get so overwhelmed that writing seems as if it increases the pain and the disappointment in the world around us; that even commenting on it increases the clarity of the error(s) of our ways and makes it even more unlikely that there ever will be a Financial-like correction in our moral compass, bringing us back to something like a meaningful society.

But, eventually the words and thoughts build up and demand their freedom...a release, even if without effect, to flow into the universe looking for fertile soil in which the thoughts contained may take root and be discussed with other, compared, and considered.

So...today my thoughts center around what seems to be a general consensus of the majority that there should be no such things as Consequences.

Friends and acquaintances have said that I am over-reacting; that consequences are still the norm.  They point out that there are laws and, when broken, that they are enforced to settle consequences on the law breakers.  They suggest that generally, despite the exceptions, those who do evil and wrong things are held to account.

My response it that not only does it not happen often enough, but that the frequency of it happening is in decline.  Moreover, when people do the right thing, more often than not they are criticized for "getting involved."  Millions of people are cheating on their taxes; few are ever made to suffer any consequences, nor do they lose the approbation of their neighbors and associates...many of these miscreants are actually held in high esteem by those that know their actions.  Just yesterday a gang rape took place on a Florida Beach, surrounded by multitudes of young people drinking beer and partying, and not one person interfered with the attack.  Only because of the fact that someone actually filmed video of the event was any police action taken...if not accidental, then just sign of the fact that such behavior is acceptable.

There are some people who are psychopaths who will ignore laws in favor of their own wishes and desires.  There are others who need no laws to motivate them; they will do all they can to help others and make life better for their fellow man.  But the vast majority in the middle are remarkably responsive to the general behavior and general definition of acceptance in the ordering of their lives...they won't rock the boat.  And it seems clear to me that the boat may be deserving of some rocking...not that I have much hope that such action will happen anytime soon.

Some of my friends suggest that this is simply a natural phenomenon; such a fall occurred to the Greeks as well as the Roman Empire and therefore it is inevitable that it happens to the United States of America.  I used to agree in major part with this view.

But now I wonder if it is not far more extensive that just an American phenomenon.  It seems to be spreading to the International Stage...to the entire world.  My friends say I am nuts...which, of course, may or may not be true and a subject that may be worthy of a full discussion at a later point...but I am not convinced.

Consider the events in Foreign affairs in the last year or so.  Terrorists killed our Ambassador to Lybia and others.  One person was arrested.  Have any of them been punished, much less caught?  Russia has annexed through force a portion of the Ukraine.  Has there been any uproar of any significance from the world nation states, much less those countries immediately surrounding the area?  For years, Pirates have operated lucrative seizures of ships off the coast of Africa, making millions of dollars from the hijackings?  Any serious repercussions to those pirates?

And more recently we have the rise of ISIL (or ISIS, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, as if it matters) and the killing of all believers in Christianity that they catch, as well as many of Islamic sects with which they disagree.  Any serious repercussions?  And some in the world see their cause as acceptable.  Yes, there are words of condemnation but few indeed...and tiny if you look at the percentage of involvement...people involved in standing against it.

Consider the matter of Iran.  Here is a nation-state that has a track record of lying and failure to abide by promises.  A nation state that finances and supports with material and people terrorists around the world.  Any consequences?  Well, one of my friends argued that we do have economic sanctions in force which hurts them.  Oh? Really?  Who is hurt?  The leaders?  The ones who control the actions of Iran?  Or is the people of Iran who suffer despite have very little, if any, control over the political decisions of Iran's leaders?

But that is the past and is almost an after-thought now.  Now Iran is working toward developing a nuclear capability, which could include nuclear weaponry.  So...what does the world do?  It sits down with the powers in Iran and begins negotiating.  Not declaring that such a development is unacceptable, which each participating nation had assured their own citizens up until a short time ago was not ever going to be allowed, but a timetable by which ultimately Iran would have the capability it desires...and also a lifting of sanctions.  And all of this based on a written promise by Iran to limit their activity toward such an end.  Doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?  A country that has a consistent track record of breaking promises now is to get relief from sanctions on the basis of a written "promise" to play well with others?  Really?  Wonder what odds would be given by any professional Book-maker on Iran fulfilling that promise.  And yet, multiple nation-states are actually seriously considering entering into such an agreement.

This is not only a failure of Consequences, but could be argued appears to be reverse consequences...a reward for bad behavior.

And the most recent event involves the Communist nations of Cuba.  Cuba has been cut off from diplomatic ties to America ever since the Communists took control of that country.  It has a proven record of human rights violations, has no freedom of the press, precious little freedom of religion and is a Dictatorship.  No change at all.  So...what are the consequences?  America opens up talks to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba.  This amounts, also, to reverse consequences; a reward for continued bad behavior.

What I am raising for discussion is that fact that all around the world there seems to be a general acceptance that consequences for bad behavior can be done away with and there will be no adverse repercussions.

I think that is not possible.  The balance that the world has heretofore acknowledged is that all people and nations should have the freedom to make decisions and choices for themselves....but that those choices have consequences.  It is the consequences that check the unfettered expression of wants and desires.  Freedoms without consequences becomes license...and that never turns out well for anyone.

What promotes bullying and polarization?

So many people have commented to me that America seems to be so much more polarized and violent than what they remember.  And that coincides with my impression.  So...why is that?

On reflection, there are many candidates...and I strongly suspect that no one of them are the sole basis, nor do I think my list is complete, but I would argue that if we take them all together we will have a pretty good idea of some major influences that work to tear us apart as a nation.

Has anyone else noticed how violent the ads on tv are these days?  Notice how medicine attacks germs, stuff like mucus is killed by whatever medicine prevents it, how bugs aren't prevented, but killed in their tracks?  Everything is not only the best to solve your problem, but seemingly needs to kill the behavior that it is intended to prevent.  And it happens more than ever before.  Think it is an influence on behavior?  Or just a reflection?  Think about it.

How about political correctness?  It stifles a clear expression of what you believe and, more importantly, feel.  Emotions that are squashed and forced to be held in lead to higher stress levels and tend ultimately to show up in physical action...and that is violence.

At the same time, it prevents responding in kind when you are verbally insulted, attacked or disrespected.  Notice how often when someone is bullied in school and reacts by attacking the bullier, it is the person who acted to protect him or herself from the bullying is the one who is punished?  Apparently the bullier is the one protected.  Why?  Again the questions: an influence on behavior, albeit deferred?  And a sign that bullying is a protected activity, despite words to the contrary?  After all, actions speak so much louder than words.

And how about the prevalent attitude that no one should suffer consequences of their actions?  When I was growing up I was taught that all actions had consequences...good,...and bad.  I learned civilized behavior from my parents.  But I learned them from the words and direction...and I learned them from consequences of not acting "civilized."  Lying was punished...immediately.  It wasn't cute to tell "stories" and it wasn't laughed at just because it was inventive...it was punished.  Fighting was allowed if it was to defend you or your relatives honor should that be disrespected.  Fighting just because you wanted something someone else had was not allowed and was punished.  Bad language (and unlike today it included all swear words and scatological references) was punished immediately and the punishment usually included improving your vocabulary, the argument being that if one had an adequate vocabulary to describe your feelings, one needn't employ swearing.

And as to shoplifting and any other law-breaking, like vandalism and other inappropriate acts, it almost never required the attention of the law.  Why? Because the law could never know like my parents how to reach my very soul and the punishment of my parents was personal and left me with immense guild; a punishment by the "state" would never have been so effective.

When in today's America have any of seen true consequences delivered to anyone as not only a punishment but as a natural order of things?  Doesn't occur much today.  Is this absence contributory?

Our teachers are tasked with teaching.  Yet both administration and parents often act as if teachers are only to be "praisers" of children, approving everything they do, passing out passing grades as a matter or right, and never interfering with children's social lives even during class time...and if they dare interfere and the child physically attacks the teacher, it is the teachers' fault.  Does this sound like civilized behavior, much less justice, to you?  Doesn't make much sense to me.  Teachers are not always blameless, but I think that they could accuse most administrations and parents of fraud in the inducement; what they got isn't what they were promised.

I don't have the expertise to define what is cause and effect here, but it is hard to look at all these tendencies so prevalent today and not think that civilized behavior is not of high priority in the minds of today's citizens.  Narcissism is the practice of today, with parents choosing to accept government benefits that will have to be paid by their as-yet-unborn heirs, and even to the point of meeting their own desires while ignoring the needs of actual children.  How sad!  How ugly!  And how profoundly disappointing to those of us who must witness it and not have the power to effect any meaningful change.

Is the Ideological Right cannibalistic?

Noticed a new story today that Rand Paul was running an advertisement on the internet criticizing Jeb Bush for running for the office of the Presidency.  Now, ignoring for the moment that Bush has NOT yet decided to run (although it IS likely), how do you feel about one member of the right side of the aisle attacking ( not disagreeing) with another from the same side?

 I don't like this stuff one little bit. Yeah...I am so conservative that I have come to consider myself an anarchist. But that is an ideological point of view, not a physical one...that is, I have no intention of going out an harming anyone or interfering with their lives.

Given that, people on the right side of the aisle have gotten into the bad habit of not being able to compromise with those on our side. We all want the same thing, I think: good fiscal responsible government kept as small as is possible. After that, we spin off into our little favorite niches. And that is fine, too. EXCEPT that we do it publicly. It is like immature brothers fighting in the front yard...out there for everyone to see and it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of Independents and even some of those in our own ideological family. Are we so stupid as to think that one side can totally annihilate the other? Or should? We should by now realize that we need to stop acting stupidly,,,at least in public. I am a member of a local Tea Party. But that doesn't mean that I automatically brand anyone who is fiscally conservative but less so on the social issues as an enemy. I NEED THE BUDGET BALANCED. I NEED THE DEFICIT TO START TO COME DOWN. If that is being worked on, no matter at what speed, I can live with that. I CANNOT live with another Progressive, Socialist, Liberal Democrat in the White House. The whole idological right needs to be made to take a time-out, made to sit in the corner and get their collective heads on straight...or you are going to find yourselves living in a European Socialist type country with absolutely no opportunity to change it. Wake up....Please!

What IS "White Privilege?"

Ask someone...anyone...to define "White Privilege."   What I get every time is an amorphic, rambling commentary that, when deciphered (if that is possible...sometimes it is not) basically says, It's YOUR fault."  The definition of "it" changes with each person, and so does the exact nature of the word, "fault."  But there is no factual or statistical support for any definition or for the conclusion.  And I cannot find the origin of the term.  It sprung out of nowhere, apparently, made of whole cloth and seems designed to emotionally carry the argument without resorting to anything inconvenient...like logic or proof.

Some of the ramblings are quite entertaining and would be humorous, were it not for the totally serious intent of the person attempting to make the argument.  One person said it could be determined simply by the shade of a persons complexion; the lighter the skin pigment, the more acceptable the person regardless of intelligence, ability, education or experience.

They became quite agitated when I inquired as to whether this scale of "whiteness" was absolute, or comparative.  They didn't understand the question.  I explained that I wanted to know if you just put all people next to each other and then oriented them by skin pigment from light to dark...or the reverse, it didn't matter to me...or if each race had its own scale.  If each race than had its own scale, then you would first have to line up all those qualifying as "white" and create a ranking from 1 to 100.  Then do the same for all African-Americans, all Spanish Origin, all Middle Easterners and all Orientals...and perhaps you would need to have sub-groups.  All of these would have a grade of "Whiteness" on an identical 1 to 100 scale.  So...my questions was..."which method of comparison was applicable?"  No answer.

How can one not only understand "White Privilege", much less adjust for it to eliminate its effect, if you cannot define or measure it?

The suspicion starts to develop that the whole concept of "White Privilege" has nothing to do with dealing with and eliminating it so much as using it as a way to avoid responsibility and consequences.  That comes from the lack of definition and the identity and background of those holding high the concept.  And I don't see a lot of occurrences that even come close to being laid at the foot of any loose definition of "White Privilege."  Behavior and attitude seem to be at the base of most of today's disturbing events: insulting law enforcement officers, attacking those who give lawful orders, interfering with others' peaceful enjoyment of public surroundings, business success, political success, just to name a few.

On the basis of skin pigmentation, Mr. Obama should never have been elected President.  Millionaire entrepreneurs are African-Americans that are quite dark in complexion...surely that cannot happen if "White Privilege" is real.  People of "color" routinely break the law and demonstrate in a manner that interferes with other citizens' quiet enjoyment of public areas...but very few are arrested and almost never is one of them actually punished for their law-breaking.  Surely that would not be so if "White Privilege" was real.  People of "color" routinely accuse, without proof, lighter skinned people of being racist and suffer no consequences from such false accusations, yet those of lighter pigment often lose their employment if they accidentally utter words that can be seen as racist only with tortured application of logic;  surely that would not be so if "white privilege" were real.

Meanwhile there are people of various hues walking around with tattoos that insult various segments of humanity, speak derogatorily of themselves and others, dress in cloths that leave ample room for diapers, and strut as if they were trying out for the role of a rooster in a 4th grade play, cannot read, speak, add or subtract without a machine and blame "white privilege" for the fact they cannot get a job...or if they can, that it only pays minimum wage and is part time.  There seems to be a certain failure to communicate here...and I tend to think it is because this group has no interest at all in listening.