Turkey

So as we work feverishly to get the house ready for the Thanksgiving gathering and resultant feast I reminisce about a few Thanks I have.

Thanks for my life in West Virginia.  It wasn't really something I planned very far in advance, but it is clear to me now after over 3 decades that God had it in mind all along.

Thanks for the permanent and inseparable love of the girl of my dreams.  While I might have wished for something like it before I met her, I could have never known the truth of this kind of love in advance.  It is unmistakable that this is one of God's greatest creations.

Thanks for my very large and growing family.  When I see the crowd (18 kids with 21 grand children) I am in awe of how the mustard seed has grown.

Thanks fro good health.  Thanks for a solid future that culminates with a meeting with a billion of so like minded people in the throne room of God.  There will be no red or blue, liberal or conservative, no votes but one, no hunger or pain, just a never ending awe of being in the presence of the Absolute Monarch who gave more than I could ever to have me and my billion friends with Him.

Yes.  Thanks Giving.

Oh...and thanks for turkey.

We're going to get you....

I've had a thought about the "blue lives matter" issue, where there is an outcry about the risks police take and the disrespect they experience.

First, I am enthusiastically in support of our police.  I think the public needs to remember that a police officer goes to work every morning with his/her life at risk.  Some more than others,  these people have the often thankless job of protecting our safety as first responders.

This being true, there is a problem I think the police produce for themselves.  The "gotcha" approach to the public can be seen most often when police hide their cars behind bushes, buildings, or landforms in "speed traps".  As a matter of fact, I think this is the most common view I have of police officers, in others words, I see them doing this more than I see anything else.

While I certainly think that traffic laws are important, and I think that having police available to respond to traffic incidents, I also think that they do no favors for their image as the friend of the public when they set up ambushes for unwary members of the public doing 61 in a 50 mph zone.

It is common for drivers and passengers to respond to seeing them in their hideout with "oooh...look...a cop", as thought they've spotted the enemy.  When there are kids in the car, this flows into the image that "cops" are some sort of enemy, we need to keep a lookout for them.

In addition to this public image problem, it seems to me that there is an inordinate proportion of law enforcement money spent on the "traffic cop", in manpower, fuel, vehicles, and effort.  If, for example, there were no cops driving around spying out unwary citizens, think of the amount of manpower, fuel, vehicles, and effort that would be released for either force reduction or added into increasing the quality of response to or prevention of other crimes.

This, I believe, is achievable.  In fact, I propose that what cops do hiding behind roadside obstacles could be achieved completely and 100% more efficiently by automation and sensors.  Roadside speed detectors and cameras detect and record 100% of offenders, that line being set by the operator.  If every single time you pass a certain point your speed is measured and you receive a bill in the mail when you violate, it is common sense you will obey the law.  I suggest that this approach would enable us to increase speed limits to the average ACTUAL speed of traffic and bust all of the violators.  It can also be used to enforce stop lights and other traffic laws that contribute to public safety.  In fact, it seems logical that this approach would pay for itself as the increase in collections occur.

The result would be efficiency in using the human policing activities, and will reduce what appears to me a negative connotation of police officers as an "enemy" setting up an ambush.  The manpower released by this approach can be redirected to public support policing activities where the public face of police officers is friendly, helpful members of the community we can all respect.

Its Academic

There's an interesting story floating around about someone finding 65 million year old skin and feathers on a dinosaur fossil.  Fact is there is soft tissue, and the highly unusual fact is those observing this fact still cling to the idea that it is 65 million years old.

Odd.

In searching for some discussion, I find 2 consistent themes - 1) if anyone dares to point to this find being more consistent with the Biblical account of a 6000 year old earth, that person is trounced on as a crazy flat-earther who is personally responsible for the Crusades., and 2)  the insistence that it MUST be 65 million years old despite the clearly questionable find of actual flesh is the one card that is holding up the whole evolution house...

I suppose for those who won't let the discussion proceed (won't discuss what the answer could be if the dinosaur is NOT 65 million, rather it is thousands of years old) have a belief versus scientific observation, something that is often emotionally charged to those who believe int he Biblical account. ..non-academic and non-scientific.   One look at the condition of King Tut's mummy, which was deliberately preserved 3 or so thousand years ago makes me, for one, question any flesh remaining identifiable for 65 million years...even when hermetically sealed...

I'll cling to the facts.  God did it and He said He did just like He said.  And, everyone will see the truth in the end (with knee bowed).

Just saying.

At least I follow one of the Commandments

It is not uncommon to hear a person say "I don't necessarily believe in God, but I am a good person, and I follow the 10 Commandments", or something like that.

That's a nice attempt to have it both ways, and allows the intellectual to feel "superior" to the God who he or she might or might not believe in, that they don't have to believe in Him to meet the standard.

Trouble is, of course, is that the first 4 commandments demand an adherence to the belief in the God they claim to not necessarily believe in, so, it might be more accurate to say "...I follow the last 6 of the 10 Commandments".

Trouble with that is, of course, that number 5 is "Honor your father and mother", which, in the Biblical context, means to address them in the traditional position of authority, honor, and respect as "elders" versus "old people".  When we look at our culture's warehousing of older folks, our pejorative view of them as "cute", and our scoffing at their old fashioned ways, number 5 is, at best, weakly adhered to.

Number 6, "shalt not kill" is pretty easy.  As long as we ignore the 5 or 6 million babies killed in their mother's womb in America every year, most modern Americans can easily obey this admonishment.

Number 7, the prohibition against adultery, is easier to maintain in a society that has diminished marriage to a convenient tax advantage rather than a Holy Covenant.  In fact, since we have defined marriage as a civil affair that people "fall" into, and ignore that those who sleep together in the same bed together might be "married" in what God meant, it is a little hard to define adultery...

8 and 9 are similar.  Not stealing or lying is easy on the surface, most don't rob 7-11s or shoplift. However, the "white lies" of our casual public often include "estimates" on our taxes that favor us, taking advantage of mistakes on bills, and not giving to God what is His.  We lie to our children as a matter of course in the "common sense" of our child rearing.

Funny 8 and 9 are together on the list, they are often interwoven in their commission in our society of self.

Finally, 10, not coveting...Maybe that'd one most people can claim adherence to.  Coveting our neighbor's stuff might not be as direct as declared, unless you notice that everyone's house, car, and stuff looks like their neighbor's.  Not sure who the first guy was, but our measure of success is less determining the consistent obedience of the God who Loves us and more the adherence to the standards declared in our neighbor's driveway.

So, in the end, the declaration "I follow the 10 Commandments" is more truthfully  "Well, I don't kill people, which is one of the 10 Commandments", depending on your position on abortion.  No wonder Jesus had to boil it down for the religious people in His day "The most important one (commandment) is this:  'Listen, Israel!  The Lord our God is the only Lord.  Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'  The second most important commandment is this"  'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.'"  (Mark ch 12, Good News)  

Check in

I haven't posted for a while, but that doesn't mean I don't want to.  I've got to figure out how to be more interesting.

To be or not to be....

I think its an important discussion, but I am afraid we won't have it.

The question is this:  "Why do we have a public policy that rewards married people?"

We offer tax advantages, legal positions, assumed joint ownership, and other advantages.  Why?

The law does not enshrine the marriage covenant, certainly.  There was a time when married people enjoyed protections as though they were "one", but no more.  A spouse cannot automatically receive information on spousal medical conditions.  I helped a friend work through settling her husbands estate, they were happily married, but where he had assumed she'd automatically have access she didn't, causing her grief to be aggravated by unreasonable bureaucratic efforts to save his estate from her claims,

Much of this is caused by the leaning away from the law encouraging marriage by making marriage easy to dissolve.  What 50 years ago was complex and difficult is now routine, divorce "just because" is an assumed right in most cases.

Children out of wedlock are almost a norm, and, in fact, are not even a reason to be married.  In fact, there is a level of public support that PENALIZES the marriage as welfare benefits are more for single women than married women regardless of employment status.  Nobody cares who has children with whom.  Nobody cares if the children can be supported, because the government will if the parents won't.  The government views the children as though they belong to the government, not the parents, the parents can raise the children as long as the government lets them.

There was a time when our public policy correctly encouraged marriage to be a desirable foundation for the population.  The archaic idea that a family with a mother and father devoted to each other in a covenant relationship was considered healthy, and assumed that 2 adults would share household roles that might create some income disadvantage and deserved some help because society benefited from this core family unit.

Not true anymore.  The law encourages both spouses to work, provides someone else to raise the children (increasingly more), and now does not identify marriage as an institution to encourage procreation.  There is scant recognition of joint rights as the government does not allow that spouses have joined their individuality in their spousal relationship, and, instead, the government insists that spouses are individuals regardless of their marriage vows and pledges.

The stupid argument over "marriage rights" should be the final blow to the institution of civil marriage.  Governments at all levels would get out of the marriage business, and not recognize marriage as anything, dissolving any automatic tax conditions, ownership rights, or name changes.  All of these can be obtained if individuals wish to make legal contracts.

If the government got out of the marriage discussion, people could marry under the circumstances they wish, and I wouldn't be forced to agree, discuss, or debate the validity of any marriage.  My marriage is one that is a covenant first and foremost to my wife before God, and is valid whether or not I have a tax benefit or civil recognition.  That's the way it should be, marriage is between people, not people and the government.  Why does the government have any input?

Let it snow.

So there was the dire prediction of a massive, record breaking snowstorm for the east coast, one that would cripple the region from Philadelphia to Maine,  New York shut down the subway, curfews were ordered, and the entire region ran out of milk, bread, cigarettes, and beer.  No doubt cancellations drove people out of work.

And....oops....Philadelphia got 2 inches of the foot they thought they'd have, New York got 9 of the promised 27 inches.  And the weather service apologized for the error and explained how hard it is to predict such things.

Understood.

The models used to compute such things depend on complex calculations, analysis of historic patterns, and extension of what happened before into the future.  Computer wizards, engineers, meteorologists, geniuses of all stripes pour their magic into computers to calculate the future and, voila, each comes up with a different story, none of which happen.

Earth systems are huge, complex, chaotic, and random.  What appears as cause and effect is often not, what appears to be linear usually isn't.

And so, if all of the science with tangible, known, fact-based, observed events in certain history produces vastly differing predictions, most of which are wrong even though they are all based on the same observations, how in the world do we think we can look backwards and make accurate assumptions of what happened in the earth system thousands, or millions or years before the observable past?

We throw away as "fable" the only written record of contemporary observers from the origins of the world we know (the Bible) in favor of the "smarter" science that presumes to know, understand, and calculate facts...the same science and basis as those who can't tell you what is going to happen within hours of an earth system event, whether a snowstorm, a volcanic eruption, earthquake, or seasonally average temperature.  We throw the truth away and throw money at those who claim they can prove it wrong.

We put our faith in that which continues to prove itself wrong rather than that which has an unchanging history of accuracy.

How smart are we really?

Red and Yellow, Black and White....

On a telephone survey the other day I was asked to give my "ethnic identity".  I said "American".  The lady said that is not a choice, I explained it is what I choose, and she went on to the next question dismissing me.  ( it'd be interesting to see what she wrote in her notes about what she thought about me...)

There is something made nowadays about the demise of the "white majority".  I might have these numbers slightly off, but I believe it is accepted that by around 2018 or so the US population under 25 will not have a white majority, and that by around 2030 or so the entire population will be that way.  It belies changing voter demographics and therefore new political winds.

So, why might this be?

I have thought about something that might make this less relevant, and might actually make this "fact" less valid.

Over the last 30-40 years we have undergone a shift in the attitude toward interracial marriage.  Before this shift it was unacceptable (in fact, in some places illegal) for white people to marry black people.  This extended somewhat to other "races", such as Oriental, and some to Hispanics as well.

Nowadays there is no limitation, and though there might be some lingering attitudes against it, the vast majority of Americans see no limits to the marriage between races or people groups.

Interesting, though, is a continuation of the past practice that was parallel to the prohibition of interracial marriage.  I don't know where it began, but it was certainly true that during segregation times, the determination of what "color" a person claims is set by a norm that if, for example, a black and white couple have a baby, the baby is automatically black.  If you see a black and white couple, I'd be surprised if you could find a single instance where the baby is identified as white. Today, there is a determination that if a person is 1/16th Native American (your great-great grandfather was Native American), then you are Native American.

What is most interesting to me about this fact, is that these "norms" were put in place to sustain segregation, yet in today's integrated "color blind" society, we accept them as the standard to measure our racial identity.

It seems to me that the erasure of the limits on interracial marriage are significant in the shrinkage of the "white majority".  It seems it is not equally valid to argue that the growth of the formerly minority populations should significantly affect this fact.  The real fact is that the identity of racial groups per se is becoming less distinct, because a child of a black and white couple is actually neither black or white, they choose their identity rather than have one by unavoidable fact.  Their "black" genes will have no greater impact on their offspring's genetics than their "white" genes.

A better step in this evolution of equality-for-all would be to have no recognition for color, or race.  Our American Melting Pot took a real step forward in the erasure of interracial marriage limits, so why don't we implement the result by having a new "ethnic identity" choice to check "American"?

Seems logical to restart at the beginning, so it is today.

Started with a familiar reading from Genesis and Luke, both starts, both filled with God's grace.  Learned of a friend's return home after heart surgery, a new beginning for him.

Maybe this new beginning will see me catch up with posts I've been meaning to make.

Hopefully I won't read this next year this time and wonder where the time went.