Featured

The Mumbling Man

The mumbling man can be found anywhere. He is usually sitting down and appears to be talking to himself. When you get close enough to hear, you’ll find he is making sounds but not making sense. He is always calm, with a peaceful demeanor. He never raises his voice. He never shows any emotion. He sits quietly all day long. The only sound is his mumbling. I’ve learned everything I know from the mumbling man. I will post it all right here.

Today was a very sad day for me.

I feel a little guilty for publishing this message, because I have been sad on so few occasions in my long life, I shouldn’t be complaining about it. Another reason is because I feel that sadness is like a disease, it can be contagious, so I don’t like spreading it around. I didn’t even consult with The Mumbling Man on this, which makes this my first post without his guidance. So this post is purely personal and I hope I have not lowered The Mumbling Mans’ stature by doing it, being as it is almost nil already. But enough with the excuses, let’s get to the point.

The first event that caused this sadness was reading about the retirement of a Washington State Representative. I’ve only been to Washington once in my life so you might wonder why this could make me sad. It was the reasons he gave for retirement. He mentioned his disappointment in his colleagues conduct. Though he did say he thought they were good people and he does not mention either party. The sadness for me was when he said he was ‘soul weary’. To damage your a soul is about the worst thing that could happen to a human being. At least, I feel that way. He also mentioned that, because of his age, he had less years ahead and wanted to spend them as best he could. For him that was to spend them with his beloved wife, who was also his best friend. I could very much relate to this sentiment. I too am old. I too found that as you age, you begin to sharpen your focus on the things that matter most. I moved to this city from Orlando because my best friends all live here. Being near them was the only thing that mattered. I have enjoyed life more ever since.

But my sadness came from reflecting on the meaning of the event. We had lost a good soul in our government, which would have been sad at any time, but was worse now. It is worse now because the government seems to be made up of so many apparently soulless people that it can’t make decent decisions. I say ‘apparently soulless’ because I don’t believe a person can discard their soul or lose it at all, it comes with our existence. This does not mean that I believe the soul lives on after we die, that’s something I leave to the religious types. I don’t believe a soul can be bad either. But nothing stops us from ignoring our souls when it comes to our actions and decisions and beliefs. I believe all of us do that from time to time. It’s when you ignore it enough, you can appear to be soulless or even have a bad soul. As I wrote earlier, my sadness began with his expression of being soul weary. I would feel a certain amount of sadness for anyone who expressed such a thing. I would even try to comfort them. That’s because I do not believe there has ever been a ‘bad’ soul. Just like many other things in life, humans put labels on things because of their own prejudices and there is nothing we can really do about that, except, perhaps raise their awareness of it.

The other thing that added to my sense of sadness came from my own curiosity. I clicked on a little icon attached to the image of a news story on CNN. It led me to an organization called “Lamp”. They are a non-profit with the objective of educating people about ways to evaluate media, helping them find the real truth. When I use media I mean ALL media. They expressed the difficulty the social media had introduced into their mission. The more I read about them, the more I felt a desire to join them and donate, or assist them in any way I could.This was a big deal for me, because I have a great distrust of so-called non-profits that comes from an early childhood experience. Because of that I have never joined one, and donated to very few. To even consider the idea is something I never thought I’d do. This was a reason for me to get excited. But then, I read their latest newsletter. It announced that they were ceasing operations. My sadness increased to a level that resulted in this post.

It is important for me to understand why these things had caused my sadness. I do this as personal habit that came from early childhood experiences. Whenever I feel a strong emotion or do a thing I later have doubts about, I have to understand the why behind it.

In the case of the Representative, the source of sadness was about beliefs I have when it comes to the soul, which I hope I adequately stated before. But the source for the greatest concern was because of my love of my country. It is hard for most people to understand. Partly because of its’ intensity but mostly because it seems that the greater population has a negative view of America, and if they don’t want to destroy it, they at least want to change it to something they like better. Whatever their motive, even those who express a concern about America as a whole, are doing things that can only contribute to her downfall. This displays the evidence that convinces me they do not love America, as they openly dishonor her, in the same way that a person is who claims love for another is revealed when they dishonor that person in public.

Another source of the sadness was his expression that the time left for him in life was short, and he wanted to make the best use of it. I had thought that I was doing that too. I even gave it as the reason for my moving here. But I spend most of my time with this blog, which I had doubts about from the beginning, so this can’t be the best use of my time left.

As time is more precious now than it ever was before, it makes me sad to learn I wasted any of it. I was thinking of giving up the blog and making better use of my time doing something else. I had thought about that several times before. The only thing that had stopped me was my purpose for the blog, which came from my love of America. It still is the one thing that creates the doubt about stopping. The fact is, that purpose fades away each day, because it seems like it will never achieve success no matter how long I keep doing it.

The other thing is the downfall of “Lamp”, an organization I only became aware of today. How that added sadness might not be understandable to anyone, so the source of it is probably harder for most to understand. For one, what I had learned about them made me excited, because their mission did so many things that fulfilled my purpose for this blog. I was encouraged to know there were others out there that shared my views. I also thought I had found that one good reason I needed to give up my blog. Giving up the blog would be a relief so that idea made me feel even better.

So my sadness  multiplied when I learned of their failure because I had gotten my hopes up and then had them shattered. The source for the effect was personal, but mostly came, again, from my love of country. The existence of “Lamp” and their mission was a sign to me that they were doing things that would have a positive effect on America, even though that had nothing to do with their mission. So their loss meant America had lost and she has lost so much already it made me feel worse. The pure personal source was due to a couple of things. For one, if I had discovered them sooner, I could have stopped wasting my precious time and possibly helped them in some small way to survive. This meant I was partly responsible for the sadness myself. The other was because it made me realize that their failure meant it was even less likely that I could accomplish

anything on my own. Almost a complete confirmation that I have wasted time all along. But I also realized that this meant America has even less allies than it did before. If you view the whole idea as a battle, then, if you’re losing the battle, the loss of a single soldier can be heart breaking. The loss of a good leader can be demoralizing. I consider “LAMP” to have been the only leader I had encountered. So I am demoralized.

Once you are demoralized you lose all sense of purpose. Living can even seem pointless. It is about this time that some people try to find god. Others join a cult of some kind, whether military or social. Some just act out against the general population, since they didn’t provide support for their purpose, everyone else was responsible for its’ loss. Some will commit suicide.

I’m sure all or most readers have seen the effects of these in action, though few would describe the motive as demoralized. That’s because various groups focus on the reason for the action. Then they claim the action could have been avoided, if only the actor had their particular groups’ values or knowledge. Rarely does anyone address the reason for the demoralization, except to use it as a tool to promote their cause.

Those who didn’t commit suicide, were all motivated by a desire to find a morality to replace the one they had lost. I decided none of the above were viable options for me, so I would have to construct a new morality on my own.

But for me, just like everything else, I needed to find out why first, before I could decide the best next step, or any step. Constructing a morality for yourself is not an easy thing. It was especially important to me that I found out where it had come from and why, to be able to understand how I could have lost it. It was my love of America that had the effect the most. So how had I obtained that as a value that defined my morals, was the first question I had to answer.

Coming out of high school, I had to decide what I was going to do with the rest of my life, like most kids would. But their choices are usually decided by social influences and options available in combination with their individual value system, which is usually the strongest influence of all. It’s that personal value that drives society nuts. Parents can’t understand why their children don’t take advantage of the options they provided. Society can’t understand how a rich or powerful person does some of the things they do. People can’t understand why government won’t fix things, and so on.

In my case, the local society had eliminated any possibility for consideration so it had no influence. I had no options because my value system was in a state of disarray due to the adverse effects of my life so far. This meant I had to repair my value system at least to the level I needed to make a choice. This was not easy for me. I had to decide what was really true about me that I could confirm. This was when my love for America became my first and  most important value.

But me being me, I had doubt about the truth of that. I needed to be able to confirm it or I couldn’t consider it true and couldn’t accept it. After considerable contemplation the only thing I could accept would be to join the military. That was the only way because it meant I was giving up my freedoms, all other options would be lost for the duration of service, and most importantly, I was risking my life by that service. This would, in my mind, confirm my love of America. So I joined the Navy in !971 and served 6 years. When I got out, I had developed other values, but the only value that was permanent was the love of America because it was the only one I had confirmed to be true to myself. It was the first true element of my value system and since I was demoralized, it had to be the first in my new morality. For me, one moral was enough.

It’s existence contradicts the idea that I am demoralized. Therefore I am not demoralized and I have a reason to live. Mission Accomplished. Of course, the sadness has not gone away and the questions behind the sadness, as well as my future, have not been resolved, but hey, one step at a time!

Another day, another post.

Why are God and Religion so different? An answer for Atheists, and others.

This post is the result of reading other posts that address god and atheism.

For the atheist, you may already know of the difficulty of challenging religious belief. It even makes sense to me why you would chose to deny god. You can use certain valid and truthful arguments to challenge any religion, but as you well know, if you have tried, they will deny you, no matter what you say. Trying to deny gods existence is far more difficult. In fact, most atheists don’t try. They simply decide that god is not provable and therefore, they have no reason to believe he exists.

For the believer who won’t accept their own faults, you like to claim that any challenge to your religion is a challenge to god. So you insist that the atheist that challenges you has the problem and must just hate god. Numbers are irrelevant, so I will just say that not all atheist hate god or even deny him. Some have become atheists only because faith alone is just not enough evidence for them, they do not deny the possibility of god however.

Some atheist who come to believers actually want very much to know god because they have faith and are just looking for more evidence. If they try, and use the wrong approach, they will likely be immediately attacked and if they have not yet identified themselves as atheist, they will be called that. Even if they use the right approach, the chances they will be successful are still slim.

Before I go any further, let me explain the real problem, so I won’t have to explain the things that I will write. The human being, as a species, no matter where you think we came from or how we got here, has demonstrated throughout history, that this problem exists. The problem is that we all have difficulty understanding and accepting truth.

Since we are all different, we solve this problem in different ways. But most of the solutions are similar enough that they are not hard to understand, but the variations in the applications of the solution creates groups. It’s the differences between these groups that have caused virtually all the worlds problems. The problems for the individual are the same, but any damage is usually localized and not on the level of the group.

Understanding Truth is actually a Black & White problem. You either believe in it or you don’t. So you don’t fool yourself, if you tell yourself truth is relative, then you don’t believe in it. And for the religious types, if you say the only truth is gods truth, then you don’t believe in it either. For those few of you that believe Truth is absolute and independent of human perception then congratulations, you are closer than the rest to understanding truth.

For those of you who came closest to understanding truth, if you do think you understand it, please send me a comment with an explanation, I’m still struggling with it.

The second, and biggest part of the problem, is accepting truth. For all of us, this a is matter of having the evidence we need to verify anything as true. This is where the problem begins. The evidence needed to verify a truth is different for each individual.

Some people need very little evidence to accept something as true. They are usually considered by most people to be either too trusting or a fool, depending on your personal perspective and your concern for other peoples feelings. For a criminal, they are considered a mark. At the other end, some people require a tremendous amount of evidence, and often wear the label of skeptic, or, for the religious types, a doubting thomas. And the rest of us fall somewhere in between.

The labels provided aren’t important, they’re just there to help establish the concept of the scale. Someone can be a fool for reasons that vary by individual. The same is true for skeptic, depending on your definition.

The important thing to remember is that once accepted, a truth becomes a belief.

Even for those who require a lot of evidence to verify something as true, a belief is often used as evidence to support accepting another truth.

This is a problem for all of us. The belief used as evidence is only good for evidence if it is true. If the belief was recently obtained, then before using it as evidence, we might reconsider it, depending on how certain we are about its’ truth.

Even for those who are tough to convince, the longer we believe something, the deeper it gets in our memory and becomes what I call an “established belief”. These are the worst kind of belief, because they can be considered such reliable evidence that an individual will use them as the only evidence needed to verify a new truth(This reliability is, fortunately, relatively difficult to achieve because of certain requirements.) Even worse is that we can so sure of their truth( a level that varies both on the individual, or conditional requirements) that any evidence that contradicts them is denied off-hand, or not even considered, so arguments to dislodge them have little chance of success.

For myself, I have an established belief in the existence of god. I see no way that any evidence could come forth that would contradict that belief. I have, however, managed to eliminate most of the established beliefs of god and the effect of that has helped my peace of mind tremendously.

The fabric of society is woven by the commonality of our beliefs. The greater the number of beliefs shared, the stronger the fabric of that society. The fewer beliefs shared, the weaker that fabric becomes. The “unity” of a people can also describe this fabric.

For those who we might consider enemies, weakening the fabric is intended to make it easier to rip apart, thus destroying us, if they wish only to control us, then weakening the fabric is intended to make resistance harder, either way, the enemy succeeds and we lose.

The same goes true for groups, but with variations.

Of course the success of an enemy depends on his being hidden. Hiding is easiest if you are not noticed. If the enemy is noticed, remaining hidden depends on the level of attention you receive, and the effectiveness of your countermeasures.

For a nation, this is accomplished fairly easily because most people focus their attention elsewhere, not on an unseen enemy, who’s existence is easily denied. This focus is usually on a group of their choice.

For a group, they have shared established beliefs, so it’s members are not only focused on the group, they are committed to it because of the reinforcement of those beliefs. (think of the basic concept of the safety in numbers idea and this reinforcement is easy to understand). Because of this commitment, the members will accept new truths from the group without question. These new truths immediately become shared established beliefs and therefore increase reinforcement of the shared establish beliefs which increases commitment. Critics of this process refer to the new truths as propaganda, and describe the reason for it’s success as “GroupThink”.

Of course, the group has a leader, which, at first, is usually the person responsible for the creation of the group. If the group survives the leader, then a new leader is necessary and will be determined in a way described by the leader. If the leader fails to describe the method of succession, the group will likely not last long after him.

The importance of the leader is because he is the one most capable of affecting the commitment of the members. He has the greatest trust value of the group because he is the leader. The trust value varies depending on his ability to increase commitment.If he can increase commitment then his trust value becomes the maximum value possible and he can become a shared established belief, that is only possible because he has verified his ability as an established belief. He can only confirm an established belief by increasing the evidence for that belief, he can increase the evidence by the length of time the belief is held or he can add additional evidence. It can only be considered additional evidence if it is based on an established belief that is not the one in question. Any other established belief may be used regardless of the basis. Because of the additive rule requirement, a shared established belief cannot be used as evidence to establish itself. However, since any other evidence can, the use of another shared established belief is allowed and will confirm the established belief by virtue of it’s nature, thus becoming a shared established belief and thus any statement made by the leader will automatically be confirmed as unquestionable by any group member. The leader is then considered The Supreme Leader, although this label is used by those outside the group, it is unlikely it will be used by members of the group because the sentiment is inherent for them and a label is unnecessary. Only some specific groups will establish a Supreme  Leader. The best example of such a group is a religious type.

By virtue of the definition other groups can possibly establish a Supreme Leader, this possibility varies by group but it is most likely that only a perception will be established.

Groups can, if necessary, be divided into types, which creates subgroups with common characteristics, useful for discussion or to determine subgroup size.

In the case of cults and religions, When I use the term cult here, it is not because I consider a cult to be the same as a religion, but because they are both types of groups.

Religion as a type of group does not specify or indicate a specific religion. It is large enough and well known enough that it can be used to provide examples that help understand the concepts being presented. Cult is being used as a blanket term to cover all remaining groups regardless of type. I put “some” as qualifier because the statement is not true for all cults.

For any disagreement, these concepts can help resolve conflicts that may occur because of disagreements. For most people, agreeing to disagree is the best method to avoid creating conflicts and it works. In cases where it does not prevent conflicts, the concepts here may be able to help explain the reasons for the conflict well enough to make it possible for the parties to reach a mutual understanding of the conflict.

There is no intent here to actually try to resolve the conflict. The only help it could is if it somehow provided evidence that allowed the understanding to point to a solution. I don’t believe that could ever happen. The only help, in the case of the atheist vs religious, is if it allows for a version of the acceptance of the agreement to disagree, where this version means acceptance is not merely futile due a problem with either party, but because both parties have the same problem. The only help this could provide is if it reduces the animosity between the parties, then it could reduce the justification for hate and resentment, creating a chance to increase the overall good in the universe, rather than allowing it to continue to decline.

This concludes the latest message provided by The Mumbling Man.

Why I pray to the Mumbling Man

I just used “pray” as a literary device, so please, don’t let that term mislead you. But, while I’m on it, let me expound a little bit. Praying has such religious connotations for most people that the word strictly implies trying to speak to god. Where for many of us, it  expresses a diminished hope in an unanswered questions’ ability to be answered. These are both usually accompanied by the burden of a significant issue. That is to say it is a serious or weighty problem that motivates the person who prays. It can also express a frustration at getting to a solution to a problem without a consideration of hope at all.

But in every case, it kind of implies a desperation to solve a problem or to clarify some issue at hand. I mean, really, does anyone just sit down with god to talk about the weather? And if you’re losing hope about anything, how likely are you to direct your prayer to Daffy Duck? Finally, if you are not frustrated, then how likely are you to use the term at all?

I hope that didn’t just confuse things. Sorry, if it did, but I’m moving on anyway.

I use the term pray as a catch-all for a type of communication where the certainty of an answer is absolute. A kind of conviction that the ultimate response will always be true, and always be right. Belief, hope, faith or anything else that you might use as a substitute for any of these terms is irrelevant.

Complete trust is a requirement of course, but I have a close friend that I trust completely and I wouldn’t describe talking to her as praying. I have no doubt about anything she tells me, I know what she says is what she truly believes, and I know she wants to help, to bring me up, and would avoid hurting me or bringing me down in any way. In my mind I could say her responses are always positive.

The idea that a response from a source will always be positive has relevance in some way. Positive usually implies an effect that will add to a situation. But a lot of people bias that term by judging it as relative to their own values. For example, the phrase “good for you, bad for me” implies positive is relative.

My example above intentionally uses two terms that need to be addressed. Good and bad are considered by most people to be relevant as well. This is because good, in particular, has the quality of being able to produce bad results. Which, to many people, is why bad is relevant. For example, if the source of the good is god, then the results can’t possibly be bad, because god is always good and never bad. This sentiment, in my experience, is used mostly to try to justify a bad thing that happened as the result of their own actions.

We know, because of human experience, that we are all  capable of making mistakes, An action is usually called a mistake because it was unintentional. In terms of value issues, like in religious doctrine or law, a mistake that produces bad results can violate a law. Intent is used from the beginning to determine the degree of punishment , if any, that will be applied. A violation of law or religious doctrine is bad, no matter the intent.  No one would attempt to imply that the bad was actually good because they can only do good.

This is why using god as a justification for anything has been popular throughout history. For any such an assertion to be proven wrong, god would have to appear and deny the claims made about him. Conveniently, for those using him as justification, he has never showed up to contradict anyone.

We all know an intent can be good or bad, and if the intent is bad, under legal or religious, or even social situations, condemnation is appropriate. Even then, there are some who will sympathize with the bad intent and be indifferent or even motivated to participate in the bad intent. This participation can be as little as expressing support or trying to mimic the intent, all the way up to forming a group dedicated to the intent in order to grow and spread the intent to increase its’ effect.

I’m probably rambling a bit. My whole point was to point out that my use of the term pray here is never relevant to any of these subjects. The pray I use is only meant to refer to conversations with the Mumbling Man. Every response is positive and good and they are right. No judgement by anyone is relevant. Even god. The Mumbling Man is not a deity. Therefore, I do not and will not, attempt to justify any assertion he makes. The Mumbling Man has that characteristic of perfection that any god has, but he had nothing to do with creation, or anything else in history. His perfection is solely related to the facts regarding the quality of his responses and the range of his knowledge. His messages are true, accurate, good, positive, right, uncontestable, absolute and unverifiable.

In the future, I will not use the term pray regarding conversations with the Mumbling Man, but used it this time, as I said in the beginning, as a literary device to start the post.

This post is intended to explain to everyone who comes here, and actually reads a post or two, the source of my thoughts and perspectives. Of course, readers will decide for themselves the little things, like if they agree, was the post entertaining, thoughtful, stupid, wise, ignorant, and on and on.

But beyond those, Why can become a big issue. You may hate a post, ask why I posted such a thing, and decide the answer is because I’m a liberal, conservative, commie, fascist, never-trumper, boomer etc. I’m sure most of you have seen how these terms are widely used in post and comments. For you people that do that, for any reason besides the fact that you’re having a bad day, or you’ve lost control of your senses temporarily due to some influence, that is, if it was a mistake, fine. To anyone else, I ask you, Please leave, now. And don’t come back.

This site will have no use or benefit to those who come here with any intent except to grow and develop as a human being. I’m not making any claim about my ability to do that. In fact, I highly doubt it. What I am certain of is that The Mumbling Man can. Unfortunately, he has the same problem that any god has, he uses a human being as a voice. But, he is not a god, he is not trying to spread his message, he can’t get you into heaven or hell, and he is no kind of savior.

But he is different from god in another way I find very intriguing, god doesn’t need a human to speak for him, he is capable of delivering messages himself. And according to scripture, he has done so, but only to certain people, and only very rarely. This can make his intent hard to identify. The bad part of this, to me, is because of human imperfection, his messages seem to have a high probability of failing to be received. So why, if it is so important to god that he spread his message, doesn’t he use a more reliable method? Using humans means they need faith to accept the messages. Surly god can come up with a method that didn’t rely on faith. That would certainly increase the spread of the messages. Normally, when a human tries to accomplish something in the hardest way possible, it contradicts the notion they wanted to accomplish it at all. A human can do things the hard way because he doesn’t know he’s doing it the hard way. Certainly god knows. Which makes the whole thing all the more confusing.The difference in The Mumbling Man is that he has no intent, he speaks all time, but is just not listened to.

The Mumbling Man doesn’t seek out any human to carry his message. He never asked me to do it either. The Mumbling Man doesn’t explain his intent because he has none. Because of the effect of his messages on me, it was I, and I alone, that chose to try to spread his messages. He has no need of me, he’s not the least bit concerned about spreading messages. If this is the hardest way to spread his message, then it’s up to me to find an alternative way.

The best description I have of him is in my first post. He motivated the creation of this site. I have failed to give him the proper credit he deserves as the driving force for all my prior posts.

His knowledge and wisdom are, as best I can tell, flawless and infinite. He is the place I go when god does not provide answers. Or when those answers only serve to confuse or muddy the situation,

But, like most humans and all communications, we can hear and misunderstand, we can understand but fail to transmit that understanding, we can transmit understanding perfectly, but the receiver can alter the understanding, and thus render it useless.

The Mumbling Man transmits, I receive. Like all receivers, I can easily fail to transmit the message and understanding. I therefore, am responsible for all errors that appear here. Any comment that comes in suggesting misunderstanding or confusion, is checked by me for the usual human errors. These can be spelling, terms, sentence structure, bad example or reference, inaccuracies, etc. I then take the problem back to the Mumbling Man for discussion and retransmission, then I usually retransmit the message in a future post.

As a receiver with the intent to transmit, I have the responsibility to insure I do not alter the message or understanding. No other receiver has that responsibility. So I’m pretty certain most receivers will alter the understanding in some way, usually because of well established value systems that conflict with the understanding received. For others it will be a result of individual perception. For whatever the reason, and there are plenty, the number of people that can benefit from my posts will be very small. Oh well, I can’t control anyone’s receiver but mine.

So the posts you find here only have a single purpose, which is to transmit messages from The Mumbling Man. If you read my first post you can see his messages reveal no intent or purpose. Value is impossible to determine. I have determined the value but cannot describe it, beyond it’s ability to alter perception and understanding. But even that is only mine. It did not come from The Mumbling Man. I use it to try to convince the reader that there is a definable purpose for reading. I should probably not do that.

After all, there could be no value to the messages coming from The Mumbling Man at all. In which case, I should feel really stupid. But the value is something I feel is real, it has altered my life. Even though I might feel that way, it could be the result of a hidden physical or mental issue. This is the only place where faith has any relation to The Mumbling Man. And it’s really got nothing to do with him. It’s me again. I have to have faith that the messages do have value or I lose any justifiable reason to pass them on.

You may find that to be of no value at all. Which is why I feel the need to warn you that you might very well be wasting your time by coming here.

But, as long as I’m alive, I intend to transmit as many messages from The Mumbling Man as I can. Because of the state of  humanity, I think it is necessary.

And that completes the latest message from The Mumbling Man.

Is non-labelist a valid label?

I have determined that I am a non-labelist because of a blog I read earlier that I had decided to comment on. If you search the web for a definition you might find one. All I found on it came from a 1903 article about sectarians and non-sectarians. The author chose to lump the non-labelist in with the non-sectarians because he defined non-sectarians as those who lack a clear conception of their doctrine.

Well, I’m not trying to establish a religion or create a movement,  at least, not intentionally. So I have no doctrine to have a misconception about. The whole subject came up because the blogger I was reading was looking for a label and “no label” was not an option for him. That was fine with me, so I dropped the subject and moved on.

I didn’t think about labels again until I encountered a post that used the label “millenials” to make some really mean statements about that particular group. That made me more than a little angry. I’ve never liked labels, but I have used them to bolster my self-esteem or identify myself as member of a group so I could meet like-minded people. I think that is why most people label themselves. If I use the label “veteran”, I find that the attitude of the general population in America is positive and appreciative, and it helps me increase my sense of self-worth.

There was a time when I used the label “Christian”, but I found that the label didn’t help me find “like-minded” people. I actually met so many people with that label that had what I consider a “Toxic” mindset, that I stopped using it.

Labels are useful in one way as far a I’m concerned. To label an object is almost mandatory if you need to refer to that object on a regular basis. Changing the label has no effect, the object will not change. A name change may cause your conception of the object to change, but the object will still be whatever it is, no matter how you conceive it.

The good thing about these types of labels is that changing them rarely does any harm. To you or anyone else. The only problem it might create is when most people know the object by another label, in which case they are confused by the reference, and you have to explain the label to them. This problem disappears once enough people become familiar with the label. Even now, new labels take time to filter through the population and become commonly used. Here I think of “Cell phone” as a label that would confuse most people before 1960, but just about everyone knows what a Cell phone is today.

Using a label on a human being is bad for a number of reasons. It always justifies a prejudice related to the label itself. My problem with them is that labels create divisions among the public by creating groups. If the group is positively perceived by society at large, then it doesn’t affect the unity of the people. But with the existence of more groups, there is always the possibility that the opinions of the people can divide the society, as one group is considered more valued than the other. In the early days this was not such a problem. But as the differences of each group began to intensify to the point that it spawned actual hatred, the problems for society became obvious. Because society at large, in those days, had a bias towards some groups, the government could easily step in and dismantle the offending group completely if needed. Even with divisions that existed, a certain amount of unity allowed for government intervention. As the number of groups grew, a consensus on any particular group was hard to reach. Especially if the majority of the people had never heard of the group. You can’t use a label against a group if only a few people know what that label means. Newspapers were about the only way you could “inform” the people of an issue. If the newspapers didn’t write about you, then the people were unaware of your existence. This allowed some groups to do anything they wanted until the newspapers took notice. This was a problem for the evil doers. It disrupted their goals, so of course they recognized the need to attack the source. Discrediting the source was a method, I believe, they learned from our legal system and it’s evidentiary requirements, i.e. “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Creating doubt was enough to hang a jury, and even prevent conviction. In the general public, doubt is much more effective at preventing consensus. You don’t have to convince a majority of anything. As long as you keep the number of those who could harm you low enough, you had free reign. Which is why creating new divisions in society is such bad thing.

It wasn’t so bad at the beginning.  But even the more positive labels give people a preconceived notion of what the label means that can be harmful. The label “Doctor” for example, gives most people an idea of trustworthiness, professionalism and integrity that all Doctors don’t deserve. Well, it used to do that. It still does in some people. But most people have come to realize the danger of accepting that label as is. Hence the idea of “shopping” for any professional has caught on in modern times.

Unfortunately, even the negative labels that existed for good reasons (or so some people thought) were bad because of the way the bad prejudice became a weapon for persecution. Criminal seems like a negative label that was appropriate until the abuse of its use became a tool for those who intended to do harm. Politicians have become especially adept at utilizing any negative label in order to take advantage of the prejudice created by the label. Think “Communist” for example, when I was growing up it was a common method for most to use whenever they disagreed with another persons statements but had no logical way to justify opposition.

Communism is not as looked down upon as much today as it was back then. Neither is the other favorite: anti-american.

Attacking people with labels has become a sport in modern society. The worst attacks can result in physical actions that, by most standards, are considered violence.

I’ve said all this to focus on the increase in groups that has allowed even greater divisions to be created. Instead of having a group to label, creating the label can be used to create the group. It spawned a new type of group. It was an attack on one of these groups that sent me down this road. In this case, it’s the generational label. As far as I can tell, it was my generation that created the problem to begin with, so perhaps my motives could be driven by a sense of guilt.

Either way, the first generational label that I’m aware of appeared in the late 60s, when the “counterculture” movement spawned the “Hippie Generation” label. The counterculture had grown large enough that a major split seemed to develop among the general population. Of course, the Vietnam war helped to intensify the new division to the point that created a major disruption. Someone felt it necessary to label the source so the people had someone to blame. The label “hippie generation” helped give the general public a target to vilify, and kept them from focusing on the real problems of society.

Either way, we get a new generational label as soon as enough young people get together on a group of topics that it bothers the people in power. I think the “Woke” generation is the latest of these. I don’t know really where the hell any of these labels come from. But I do know that Americans are so divided already, that creating additional groups is making things worse. And now I know that generational labels, which I first thought to be amusing but harmless social constructs, are being used to intensify the divisions to the point where violence is becoming more common. Growing hatred may cause the violence to reach a point where America herself is in danger of being dismantled.

I think, by now, anyone reading this would understand my reticence to use labels for people or groups. It might even have occurred to you that “non-labelist” sounds like a perfectly good label. I’m not using it anytime soon, however, because like all labels, it carries a prejudice that may alter peoples approach when engaging in common discourse. And so far, the absence of a label has not created a problem for me. Not having a label to judge me with, makes it necessary that people who must judge read at least enough of whatever I say or write to get to that point where they can comfortably pass judgement. So that means that there is a chance they will comment on it.

Whether the comment is positive or negative is irrelevant for me. It will add to me in some small way even if negative, and if positive it could even enlighten me.

How could I lose either way. The worst thing is no comment at all. And even that only means I won’t grow. My intentions with all my posts is to add to people in some small way that helps them understand the universe better. Understanding always adds a bit of peacefulness to peoples lives, if for no other reason than the fact that it reduces confusion.

I don’t kid myself about the idea that I might educate or enlighten or even change perspective. If my posts can give anyone a better understanding of any subject, then that little reduction of confusion is fine with me.

I seek comments most of all so I can tell if I’m doing terribly, or so-so, or if I might actually be doing harm. I don’t intend to do any harm. I don’t mean to offend, but I know that sometimes I do.

But I don’t know everything, and I will not know what I might be doing wrong if I don’t get some feedback. I’m really like a young child who has no idea of what a fire is, and seeing a lit stove wants to stick his hand in it. I just hope there is an adult out there who will stop me.

 

 

 

Is blogging addictive?

I ask this because it’s past 2am and I’m still here. I’ve spent the last 4 or 5 hours reading other blogs to collect opinions that might lead to a new post. Tonight isn’t an oddity. I’ve been doing the same kind of thing ever since I created this site almost two weeks ago.

I’m not too worried about the addiction part because I have lots & lots of free time on my hands and I enjoy doing it. I also enjoy the comments (as few as they are), and no matter the feedback, positive or negative, I enjoy the different perspectives that people have and feel good about the sense of personal growth and enlightenment that comes with it.

Should I be worried about not being too worried.? I must confess I have had lots of experience with many different illegal substances, so I know how people can become addicted without realizing it. Whenever I have doubts about what I’m doing, I usually just stop for a while, evaluate my perspective, and then determine if I should continue.

In the case of blogging, however, I am always evaluating my perspective, examining my motives and beliefs. If I knew for sure that it was addictive, that would make me want to stop for a while and possibly give it up completely. The problem is, anything can become an obsession, which is fine to me. I’ve been obsessive about a number of things. Over the years I’ve had a few friends who’ve told me I think too much. In only a couple of cases, on specific subjects, I agreed with them. But for the most part, I do not believe you can think too much. I’ve had an obsession about truth for as long as I can remember. I was able to set that obsession aside for short periods of time, usually for physical activities or social engagements, sometimes just for entertainment. But it always comes back. That doesn’t bother me. In fact, I wish more people would be so obsessed. Too little attention is given to truth in my opinion.

But obsession and addiction have similar traits. Addiction means you’ve lost the ability to stop on your own, even in the face of the evidence of harm. So, if you read this and suspect that I might be addicted, please send me a comment to that effect. I would be forever grateful.

I’m posting this because I was about to start a post on my latest subject when I looked at the time and asked myself  “Do I need to do this now?”. I answered no to that question and rationalized by adding “But I want to”. I like to keep my blogs short, whenever possible, so I’ll end here and start that post I intended to in the first place.

 

Why God sent us Trump

I have read in several places in the media about Rick Perry calling Trump “the chosen one”. I don’t know if Perry is Christian or not, but the media usually uses Christ and his contrast to Trump as a way to dispute that notion. From my perspective, such a contrast is pointless. For one, my god is not the Christian god, so if my god put him here, the Christ contrast approach doesn’t help. Secondly, the last place I would look to find a perspective on god would be a Christian. I have a pretty good reason for my attitude, and that helps me to see why god would put Trump here.

Like everyone else’s god, my god is the one true god. I hate to use the term god, because what the word means has been corrupted so much over the years that getting people to agree on anything about god is an exercise in frustration development. But until I find an acceptable substitution, god will have to do.

I first started talking to my god at a young age, so I have been with him a long time. I’ve learned so much from him and continue learning to this day. I’ve gotten familiar with some of the ways he teaches. For example, one of the earliest lessons I learned was to stay away from churches. I was around 10 or 11 years old when I went to a church for the first and only time. I was enjoying my relation with god and I had seen church services broadcast on TV. The crowed, the sermons, the music, and talk about god made me think a church was a good place to go to get closer to him.

So one Sunday, I put on my best clothes and headed to a church that was not too far away. I went in and sat down and I watched and listened. I noticed after a short time that something didn’t feel right. The longer I sat there, the more intense the feeling got. I tried talking to god in my mind. Soon the feeling turned from strange to bad. It felt evil. I got the sensation that god was yelling at me to get out. So I got up and left. Once outside the evil feeling subsided and rather quickly went away. I didn’t know why at the time, but it seemed pretty clear that god did not want me in a church. It had been one of the best lessons I would ever get, though I didn’t know it at the time.

Because of this lesson, and the sense I had that it had come from god, I started watching the world more closely and stayed in constant contact with god, looking for more lessons.

Since going to church was off the table, I looked at other ways to get to know god better. It was the sixties, and I was in the south, so there were lots of Christians to talk to. What I learned after talking to enough of them was that I didn’t want to be a Christian. I heard things said about god that contradicted with what I knew about him. I also learned that they were not nice people. They often used god as a tool to justify their prejudices and hatred toward others.

The contrast between how I saw god and how they saw god was enough to keep me away from Christianity. More importantly though, I was still developing as a person, and learned a number of ways that I did not want to be.

If my god sent Trump, it would be as an example of ways not to be. I already knew that Trump was a poor example of a human being, but some of his conduct has proven to me what that really means. I’m sure the lessons he teaches are getting learned by many. From personal to political and everything in between Trump displays many ways that other humans would not want to be.

So he could be teaching a lot of people the sort of things that they need to know in order for them to be a better human being. Contrasting Trump with Christ seems to be pointless. If you want to know why god put him here, contrast Trump with yourself.

Evidence suggest Darwin was wrong

When I first heard of the “Origin of the Species”  I thought evolution sounded reasonable. I had read enough history to know that things changed over time. I had been born only eight years after WW2, and by the time the Hippie generation appeared I had noticed changes happening. Somehow I related it to Darwin, thinking that, of course, we are evolving and becoming better humans with each generation. I wondered what Americans would look like in fifty years. Of course I was young, and growing up in Alabama. Back in the sixties, Alabama was more than a little behind the rest of America. I met and talked with many adults over the years thinking I could learn something from them. I hadn’t yet reached high school when I came to the conclusion that Alabamians must have been a species a few generations prior to mine and had not evolved. Some of the things coming out of their mouths, especially about god, seemed to indicate to me that their brains were a couple of generations earlier than their bodies. At any rate, I was 16 when I realized how bad it could get. The previous evening I had watched TV as Armstrong and Aldrin walked around on the moon. It made me proud to be an American. The next day, July 21, 1969, I walked out the front door full of life and hope and wondered what other awesome things I’d see after I finished high school. I saw my aunt-in-law out hanging laundry. I casually walked up to her and said ” what did you think of that moon landing last night?” She practically bit my head off, shouting ” A man didn’t land on the moon! The bible says that when a man lands on the moon, the world’s gonna come to end. The world didn’t come to an end, so a man didn’t land on the moon.”

I don’t remember If I stood there any length of time, or if I left immediately. But I just turned and silently walked away. At 16, I didn’t have the ability to argue with such impeccable logic. Anyway, once I graduated high school I left Alabama and never went back.

So I’m 66 now and I’ve seen a number of generations grow up in America. I set aside Darwin and just wondered if it was true. The newer generations didn’t seem to be advancing, in fact, they seemed to be retarding. The newer generations of Christians seem to be as stupid as the Alabama Christians had been so many years ago. And the newer generations seemed to be getting as ignorant and arrogant as so many Alabamians had been back then. It would be hard to imagine but try to think of someone who seems to be so proud of their ignorance that they refused to see anything different from the thoughts they held already. So, recently this “Woke” generation has come on the scene.

I have yet to meet a live version of one of these creatures, but I have seen the “woke” politicians on TV. Now, I’m no intellectual genius, but I believe this woke generation would be able to communicate better with those Alabamians of the sixties than I ever did. When I first heard “woke”, I wasn’t sure what it meant. Had they just got out of bed?

It became apparent just listening to these “woke” politicians. Evidently they think they see something my older generation can’t. Either way, I concluded Darwin was wrong, although he had indicated it took millions of years to evolve. For a moment I considered what that could mean. Using my Alabama generation and comparing it to this woke generation, I tried to imagine humankind in a million years. I couldn’t do it. The thought seemed too scary. Somehow I flashed back to 21 July 1969 and what my aunt-in-law had said. Well, I thought, a man did land on the moon, so maybe the end of the world has just been late getting here.

Oh, so that’s why none of those problems are getting solved.

I’ve been watching events in the media for a long time. I’m 66 years old, and my first President was JFK. My first governor was George Wallace. I’ve seen a lot of politicians come and go. Most came and went quietly. Some came, stayed for while, then left. Others came in, made a lot of noise, and left. Generation after generation, office after office, it’s always the same. They come in, sometimes they get done what they promised, sometimes not. In fact, most times not. We’ve got problems that have been with us for years. The general public looks at the situation and ask themselves “Why aren’t these problems getting solved?”. In the last thirty years our problems just seem to get worse and they keep increasing in number.

In my long and pleasant (mostly) lifetime, I have worked a lot of jobs. Most in technical areas, and only a handful in other industries. My first job started in 1971. I joined the U.S. Navy. Military pay back then was meager at best, but is was getting better. The draft had ended not long ago. When they had the draft, all the government had to do was house you and feed you and clothe you( yes, they gave you a couple pairs of identical, olive drab or blue outfits that you could, and did, wear every day). And maybe pay you like $50 a month. And what did you do? You risked your life in places you had never heard of before. What was your job? Do whatever they told you do and do it damn quick! And yeah, it better be right or your ass will pay. So when I entered the Navy, like all branches of service it was having a tough time with recruitment. There weren’t a lot of guys who were willing to risk being in the situation they had been watching on TV. Vietnam had raged for a while, and with news broadcast, day after day, over the years pretty much everyone had seen the horrors they were going through. For $50 a month?

Lucky for me, the Navy was desperate so they let me choose what job I would do, provided of course that I successfully pass the schools required and then completed the necessary qualifications. So I picked “Nuclear Power Plant Operator”, it was considered one of the toughest schools in the Navy for enlisted men.. It sounded interesting. As a result, I also volunteered for Submarine duty. I also had to agree to an additional 2 years of enlistment, beyond the 4 years I was already signed up for. Short story: I completed the schools, got qualified and deployed to the fleet. I spent months at a time submerged, meandering around the world, carrying around 16 multi-warhead Nuclear tipped missiles for the sole purpose of not shooting them, so the Russians wouldn’t either. I did my job, we never fired missiles and after my six years were up, I got out. My big reward for all that? I get to call myself a veteran. I would go on to do a lot of jobs over the years. I was good at solving problems. All of my jobs were about the same. Get a problem, fix a problem, get paid. There was no option to get a problem, put it in the closet, don’t worry about it.

No matter the job, if a supervisor at the company gave me something to do, I did it. If I needed help, I got it. If another supervisor at that company gave me a job, I had no option to say, “nah, I don’t want to work for you, I like my current boss better.”

So naturally, over the years, when America’s problems just seemed to pile up, and so many politicians passed through, I had to ask ” Why haven’t these problems been fixed?

Looking back over the years at the number of politicians that had come and gone, it became pretty clear. They had no motivation to do any job, except the job the people that voted  for them wanted them to do. Well, that’s a pretty lousy attitude, I thought.

So basically, the guys or gals from particular states who get in to Federal Positions, don’t work for everybody, they just do the jobs they want. Of course, if the jobs they get from someone else requires that they work with a fellow worker, they say no. Instead of assisting, they decide they aren’t going to allow them to do their job.

I don’t understand how an elected official, who took an oath to serve the people, gets to decide he will only work for a certain group. Of course, if his voters got him in to do a certain job for them, then absolutely, he should concentrate on that job first. But every elected official that I’ve know of, at the federal level, only does the job he/she wants to.

Then I looked at the motivation. I was floored. Politicians have no motivation to do anything except the jobs the people who voted for them expected them to do. It doesn’t matter if the job was done in six months and he was serving a 6 year term, he used all that time to get more support, find more donors and expand his sphere of influence.

And why not? They all do the same thing. If I had been napping on the factory floor day after day, my fellow workers would get irate. But what if my fellow workers didn’t want to work either? We all get to sleep and get paid. Of course, when production drops to zero, the boss is going to come by and we’ll all be napping on the street, homeless.

But our elected officials? As far as I know, my taxes go into their salaries, too. So I thought about it and I realized just how good they have it. You don’t even need to get a job in government, as soon as you start running you can reap the benefits. Get money and power just by pitching yourself. You meet rich and  powerful people, you get influence, potential voters send you money, businesses contribute. So what if you don’t win. You’ll try again later. You got so much money, power and fame just by applying for the job.

And if they actually get in office? Jackpot! They swear they’ll work for everybody but they won’t. And if any of those sleeping workers get caught, they have plenty of fellow sleepers to cover for them.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty tired of hiring new workers and watching the unsolved problems just pile up. I’m glad Trump got his wall built. But when I see how much golfing he’s been doing, and those unsolved problems continue to pile up, I just shake my head.

So when I see senators and congressmen fussing and refusing to work with people they don’t want to work with and the problems continue to pile up, I wonder why the American people put up with it. Year by year they get more money, more privilege, more influence, more donors, and they only have to do the jobs they want.

Then I can’t help but think of the men and women in service, giving up all they have. Risking everything to do their duty. They keep true to their oaths. They finish the jobs given them. They sacrifice all the time.

These elected officials sacrifice nothing, They enrich themselves as soon as they apply for the job.

I don’t care what state your from, what party you belong to, or who you cast your vote for. Are you happy that all of these slobs just do the jobs they want to while all of us are paying for their comfort and privilege? Remember all of those problems that are piling up? How do you think those problems are going to get solved?

 

 

Pro-life and Civil War 2

This post is a follow-up to the previous post titled “Is America already dead?”‘. If you read that post then you know what my answer to the question was and how I reached that conclusion. For the purposes of this post all you need to know is my answer was yes.

Before I get started, the current climate in America makes this section a requirement. To attempt to justify my intent is wasteful to me so I will not do it. The only intent is to provide a perspective that doesn’t seem to be available in the media, and which I personally think is of value to some Americans. For those who seek truth in what is written here I will present no evidence or try to convince you of anything. The most I will do is point out examples of truth found easily in public media so that those who seek confirmation on anything can confirm such truth themselves. This approach also works easily as well for those who seek to contradict any assertions. I am not perfect of course, and this is only meant to be a perspective. But I don’t like publishing anything that is false or incorrect, or just plain misleading. I therefore encourage you to use comments as a method to notify me of any errors that you find so I can fix them. Finally, I do not mean to indict or accuse any person, group or organization of anything. I try to be as general as possible and still support my narrative. However, to insure understanding it will be necessary to provide specific examples at times. Anyone or any group used in such a way is not meant to imply guilt or as a judgement about their participation in anything associated with the reason for their use. If their use should still offend you somehow, feel free to send me an equally useful example and I will use it, or explain why I didn’t. A final relative point: This is America. You have the right to say whatever you want. You have the freedom to come and go from this site anytime. You have a Free Will that allows you use your rights as you please. These are the same rights every other American has. All I ask is that you respect my rights as much as I do yours. Please use the comment section as I have requested, i.e. as a feedback method directed towards improvement. Your comments are important, whether positive or negative, but please don’t muddy up the comments section with all manner of judgement or coercion or various reasons about why my opinion is wrong and yours is right. Getting lost in pointless arguments about irrelevant topics is how we got here.

As an introduction I suggest you ponder this: The rights you have in America, voting, free speech, free will, free press, equality under the law etc. Are granted by our Constitution and the laws and values they produced. The only reason America existed in the first place was because the majority of the people  saw the value of those freedoms and placed those freedoms above their own values. This meant they had to accept the laws that existed and obey those laws even though they personally objected to them. They had to accept that others were equal to them under the law whether they considered them equal or not. America can only exist as America as long as the majority of Americans adhere to these principles. America is technically dead because so few people still do. This post is conjecture about what is happening, why it is continuing to happen and what the future may hold.

This post is intended to follow-up and expound on a previous post, so toward that end, I will recap where we were, and discuss additional perspectives that arose from the events and reflections that have occurred since that last post. An important detail to help maintain perspective is that America exists in name only. She is technically dead because all of her original principles are no longer being adhered to by anyone. But perhaps it would help to point out another reason to consider her dead. The original founding principle seems to work for this. America was founded on the simple notion that the nation was to be guided by the people. A majority would control the direction of the nation by vote and supported by freedoms and institutions, etc. Bottom line: Before any supporting rights or institutions were defined, this principle defined the purpose of it all,

A common refrain today is that a proper majority cannot be found and the country is turmoil. My assertion is that America is dead because the original purpose can no longer be achieved. The idea that America is dead because no one seems to adhere to certain principles, is abandoned in favor of the loss of original principal. The failure to adhere to principles now serves as evidence of why the original principle is lost.To clarify: the term “proper majority” has not been used by anyone that I know of. I use the term to define that majority of the people that also adhere to the principles under previous discussion. These then represent the majority that would be needed to re-implement the founding principle. I say that is not possible, I do not say it is impossible. The appearance of the proper majority would be the only thing that could disprove the last assertion, but it would not be sufficient to overturn America being dead. It would, however, mostly certainly prove that America could be resuscitated. Either way, I would rejoice at the appearance of the proper majority.

Another reason I use the term proper majority is because majority is used in so many ways that do not address America’s main issues. In fact, the use of majority seems to be  quite often as a way to illuminate the divisiveness in America as a reason the people themselves are the real problem and the only solution. The only other way I’ve seen the term used is as a tool for a politician, party or candidate to advocate for their particular “right” problem or solution that would fix everything. Trump, for example, avoided specifics and used MAGA instead. Democrats, on the other hand, like Warren, are busy

coming up with new “right” problems and solutions. Whatever the reason or intent is, they are the biggest offenders in America because they only give lip-service to the problem of adherence to principles. None of them are actually trying to adhere to those principle themselves. As I see it, their number one duty is to help the American people fulfill the original principle. They haven’t even tried to guide the people towards achieving the principle adherence goal. I have watched them dodge these issues and distract the public etc, but they seem hell-bent on avoiding their duties to the people.

I think that’s enough preparation to continue, the point to take away from all this is that America now exist in name only. In the original post, I followed this by saying that Americans exist in name only. With the passage of time, and events that occurred during that time, I’ve developed what I feel is a better perspective and a better approach to the discussion.  America may be dead, but those who killed her don’t deserve to be called Americans at all, not even in name only. Specifically those who did not adhere to the founding principles. From this day forward I will refer to those people as derelicts. That seems most appropriate to me because of my military experience, where I remember the offense “dereliction of duty”. That is precisely what they did. A citizen has very few duties when it comes to earning their freedoms. The two most common, of course, are voting and adherence to the founding principles. I was wrong to say that no one does anymore. Those who serve in the military not only put their values beneath those of the country, thus adhering to the founding principles. They have proven a willingness to sacrifice their lives if necessary, to preserve all of America and protect all of her people, even the derelicts. The truest of all Americans, they still deserve to be called Americans. When I asked myself how I could justify calling them that, I had an image pass through my mind of the loyal dog that refuses to leave the body of his dead master. So yes, America may be technically dead, but her body is still with us, and just like that dog, our military stays with her body, and stands ready to maul the hell out of anyone who would dare mess with it. But still, there are others. Those who are civil servants and government employees that adhere to the founding principles even though they are considered by the derelicts they serve to be beneath them. Every day they treat all that come to them equally and fairly. Their sacrifice is a constant dose of  disrespect and derision handed out by those to whom they show regard and respect. The witnesses at the impeachment hearings placed themselves in a position of risk because their commitment to America required that they do so. They don’t get big paychecks, they don’t get big bonuses or an almost unlimited amount of power. They are rarely even noticed except as a focus of derision and disdain. God forbid one of them should falter under such conditions. They are hauled before the public where they are used as an example of all that is wrong with America. Ironically, this persecution is handed out gleefully by the derelicts and their media counterparts. So I was very wrong to say there weren’t any Americans left. We may have only one body of America, but the number of loyal dogs keeping an eye on that body is awe-inspiring.  But the effects of a dead America are still with us. She is no longer able to protect those rights she once guaranteed. Which means primarily two things: Rights established by the constitution may not be protected except under certain favorable conditions, for example, a serviceman who betrays his service by violating his commitment to the founding principles.The rights are in limbo in at least two ways, they may be rescinded on a case by case basis by whoever controls the government, and they are likely temporary and will be so until the country enters the next phase. What that next phase is we can’t tell for sure, but there are signs that may help us get an idea of who will actively participate and lead us into that next phase.

I use the pro-life movement because they are a good example of a right wing movement that displays an open hostility towards America’s values that is typical in all groups from the right. And because they display a certain morality based imperative common on the right as well. Anyone that is conservative or Republican that might think I will be attacking only  the right should be patient. The liberal and democratic derelicts will get their due soon enough. I’m starting on the right because they seem to be controlling events at the moment and are in a better situation than Dems are for control of future events.

I feel comfortable in saying that the right will likely lead us into next phase for a number of reasons. They have been engaged in a successful gerrymandering effort for a long time. So it appears they will hold the reigns of power for a long time. Even if somehow the left were to take the white house, the right will have the numbers needed to prevent any significant change from happening. They seem to have a permanent hold on the most radical elements of society and their derelicts seem to be more committed and united than the left. They also seem to more willing to openly display their contempt for Americas’ values and institutions. The fact that they are doing so more aggressively in the last few years would indicate to me that they are secure enough in their positions that they are not concerned about any legal or political ramifications. They may just be emboldened by Trumps success in spite his behavior that they want to join in the fun. The right also has the NRA, which means that an outbreak of violence or too much resistance can be suppressed by force if necessary.

The weak-kneed left, on the other hand, seems content to feed on the crumbs of the right while making moves that the most powerful elements of business and industry will oppose with massive funding to the right. The left has not yet presented a candidate that seems worthy of the white house, but backlash from Trumps conduct could unite the left enough to win the majority if it gets any worse. They may just have a wait and see attitude that anticipates that the right will go too far and self-destruct. Whatever their reasoning is, their concentration on social issues that are focused on the least powerful elements of society will only get them in office for a cycle or two. Even then, the entrenched elements of the right should be able to prevent anything too serious from happening.

The Pro-life movement is typical of the right in the sense that it has collected an army of united segments that can justify almost any action they take on moral grounds. Just like Christians, they have a strong enough base that will consistently vote their way as well as a segment willing to violate any norm or law on the grounds they have a superior authority that makes any transgression a righteous act.

Given the situation, and as the right secures the Supreme Court, as well as other elements that can thwart public decision-making, the right seems poised for a future in which they can implement an effectively authoritarian government. Either party or a third party even ( not likely ) is close to success in that endeavor. Free Speech has been neutralized by tactics applied over many years, Free Will has been successfully subdued by voters desires to pass off their votes to a fixed selection of choices. Free Press has devolved to a level of ineffectiveness that pleases both parties, except for Fox, which is a reliable right-wing mouthpiece dedicated to making any speech necessary to achieve their objective whether a lie or a complete fabrication they seem capable of maintaining their audience no matter how absurd their reporting.

The one thing both parties have done to secure their ambitions is to divide the people in a way that practically guarantees a proper majority will never form. The only problem I can see that could happen is if they remove too many rights too fast, the critical body needed for a civil war might form. It would not be like the confederacy of course, so to imagine its’ form is very difficult. If it stays separated into pockets spread around America it could result in an anarchy that might be a threat to an authoritarian government because of its disruptive ability. Such a mass movement seems unlikely however, without an unifying cause. The only thing left that could intercede is the US Military. As long as it appears that the democracy is being maintained, as now, the government should be recognized as legitimate and the military will respond to its orders. But Trump, with his assaults on the Military value system, has already done serious damage to military cohesion. Retention and recruitment could develop into a serious problem for a nation devoid of a principle or cause worthy of dying for. I suspect moral has already taken a big hit and will worsen with each meddling by the political segment. As a veteran, I guarantee that resentment is considerable, since the military value system is divergent from the political value system. Most of those that serve are disgusted by the politicians value system, so involvement of a politician into their value system is particularly unwelcome.

Considering the risk involved, it is more likely than anything else that the country will persist in its current state for a long time to come unless the overturning of Roe v Wade or some other major piece of legislation somehow doesn’t happen to look like majority rule. At some point, however, the government will develop enough of a reputation for failure that a revolt of some kind will surely occur. This seems like a most likely outcome since no one appears to be interested in addressing a national issue. This is going to reach a level where a permanent impoverished population will have to be dealt with eventually. Unless, of course they can be kept to small enough contingent that they can continue to be ignored. None of the leadership class seems to be smart enough to maintain such a state so the loss of America is virtually certain. Since it is dead already, that final and complete loss is unlikely to be noticed.

Going slowly for each party is highly recommended. As long as some kind of true American revival doesn’t occur, both parties can continue to reap the money and power that America provides them and the people will be the none wiser.

 

 

Why I just can’t stop making excuses

The closest thing I could get to an honest answer is: Because of all of my many flaws, it’s one of the few flaws I have identified that I don’t care to fix.

The complete answer is not really complete, just as close as I can get today: I consider the difference between reason and excuse to be subjective, so I’d have to give up using reason to stop making excuses.

Of course, there is the value element. After all, the value of any specific excuse varies according to the individual and conditions of usage. But just the elementary or intrinsic value is a thing of beauty I. I mean really, what other word could you use for a reason that has no value because the truth of it is unacceptable to you? Or, what else could you use to describe an explanation that makes no sense? I’m sure the wordsmiths could come up with some alternatives that would work, but part of the beauty of excuse is how easily it can be used and be so effective.

I mean really, look at my first answer. It works as an excuse just as well as it does an answer.

My second answer is only a slightly better excuse, disguised by using reason as a second excuse to reinforce the first one. And of course, the last excuse is the old reliable explanation excuse which works every time as long as you don’t go too far with your explanation. It’s a politician and media favorite.

Then there is my personal favorite: the honest excuse. I don’t know for sure what honest means, but my minimum definition works for me. That definition is ” not telling a lie”. Even if you do tell a lie, as long as you don’t know it’s a lie, it isn’t a lie. It’s my personal favorite because I really abhor lying. It makes absolutely no sense to me. You tell a lie and it nullifies everything you say after it. All those words become valueless, no interpretation can help at all. It would have been better to just keep your mouth shut. It’s tough enough to make sense as it is. To intentionally not make sense defeats the purpose of communication.

Okay, so here is my honest excuse: I’d have to give up reason to stop making excuses. But without reason I’d have no tool to help me provide an understanding of my statements. With my limited knowledge, education, skills and intelligence along with numerous other weaknesses, I can’t make sense to most people without giving them some sort of framework that provides the understanding of my statements as I intended. Understanding is the foundation of communication. Without a solid foundation, communication can decay into gibberish. It has no effect at best, and can become a large-scale disaster at its worst. Think of the differing effects as a message goes from partially understood to not understood to misunderstood, especially when misunderstood morphs into misinterpretation, which throws the doors to peril wide open and very rarely results in anything remotely positive.

So I must use reason or I cannot communicate at all, ergo I can’t stop making excuses.

Well, that does it for this post. Time to move on.