What happened to thinking?

Blogging was a rage some time ago, before the rise of "social" media and the headline - 120 character thought process.  Social media is sort of like getting news and information while standing in the grocery store check out line.

Seems a shame, first because with social media we seem less thoughtful in what we write, and second, because it seems we are losing the ability to read things in small fonts and hundreds of words.  Thought provoking seems to now be reduced to memes.

A shame.

Of course, I am the guiltiest, having not provoked a thought for a 2 years on my blog.  I believe my sin is of little consequence since I think at the peak of my popularity I had 3 readers who weren't in my family.

Of well.  The reason I am writing now is to make sure my blog is alive with activity, albeit one entry in these 2 years and also to provoke some thought.

How about that jacket the First Lady wore... : )

What is equal?

Read a piece today that preached equality in "race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, blindness, handicap, sexual orientation and gender identity".

OK, so, we are so freaked out about differences....what about hair color?  stature?  weight? economic capacity?  "handedness"?  eye color?

Dang.

Innie or Outie

So, it has come to this...is it so that our biggest social problem is whether or not men should be able to use women's bathrooms if they identify as a woman, or vice versa?  Does the bathroom a person use dignify their sexuality?  Is it reasonable to say that gender and sexuality are different?  Do we need something else to do or worry about?

I think the whole thing can be changed by identifying bathrooms as "innie" or "outie".  That's what this issue is really about anyway.

Oh, and I'd never run for president.

Why do you ask us what we think when all you do is tell us what to think?

It is interesting that the news industry pronounces the results of polls of the opinions of Americans to find out what they believe or choose.  That seems OK, except that it is the news industry that tells Americans what to believe.  In our time of soundbites, crawlers, headlines, and 24/7 flashes the industry discourages thoughtful analysis.  In addition, the emotion encouraged by the same industry discourages deviation from the "party line(s)" being advocated by individual media.  Essentially, the news media has created a self-licking ice cream cone.

Sorry, I just can't stop myself...

I even find a strange release when I start my confession with "I can't believe what an idiot I was"...or have been......or am....

Disarms critics too, the worst they can do is agree..

Upon further consideration...

Back to that cowardly way of confessing without taking responsibility - we see other versions - like "I am sorry if I did something wrong..."  ..or..."I am sorry if I offended you...".  These are making it YOUR problem if YOUR think I did something wrong, and can count as an apology because I said I am sorry.

Of course, in some ways you indeed are sorry....

Anyway, another is one we've heard recently "I admit I had a lapse in judgement...".  Close to a confession, but not actually saying I WAS WRONG.

Seems a good way to really confess is to say "I was wrong, I shouldn't have done that, I am sorry I did..."

An I am sorry if it offends you that I am pointing this out....I am sure the devil made me have this lapse in judgement and make an unfortunate choice...

On being mealy mouthed/

Somewhere in the 70's comedian Flip Wilson developed a tagline "the devil made me do it" as a routine in his appearances.  This phrase quickly saturated the American lexicon, and became a more nuanced way of confessing "I did it, but its not my fault".

I have many children, and remember well when another version of this excuse-making entered our household.  Entering the house after school, one would start explaining "you should have seen what the other kids got on the math test"....how many "f's" there were...as a prelude to the announcement she had a D or F, but it wasn't really her fault...

There are some more modern versions of this same "nuanced confession" tendency today.  One is being "radicalized".  As though an individual had little choice, he or she, like walking through a rain shower produces wetness, got "radicalized" by being in the presence of some nefarious teaching.  The person didn't make choices, the person was "radicalized".  The devil made them do it.  Not their fault.

Another one relates to "desire".  A person cannot help their behavior because of "desire".  Often included in sexual behavior, in a way of excusing one from observing accepted moral behavior, the excuse "I was born with this or that behavior" really means "I like doing it, and my liking it trumps right or wrong" (or, in some cases, defines right and wrong).  Of course it isn't hard to take this to its logical conclusion.

I suppose there are mitigating circumstances to all behavior, right or wrong.  In addition, I am sure "right" and "wrong" norms morph with time and culture.  Understanding that, it is still true that we make daily choices.  As I grab a handful of chips in the middle of the morning, my desire overrides my knowledge of the effect on my waistline, the devil radicalizes my dietary choices, and I get fat. Shame.  Imagine how skinny I'd be if I made the choice based on the righteousness of healthy eating.

Back at-chya

Saw one of those sappy short flicks on FB that promoted giving and how life changing a single gift was, with the edict to remember and return.  The return was also life changing, but, due to circumstances, was much larger than the first gift it was in response to.  Despite the size, the impact on the recipient was similarly significant.

I remember 2 in particular - one gift of $20 and one other of $40.  I also remember a couple of people (families) who loved me for no reason.  I must ensure that, while I have little likelihood of returning to those individuals the impact their gifts made on me at the moment I received them, that the theme of my life be to have that same impact on others around me - that I don't measure the gift I give by the worthiness of those I give it to.  For me, that can only be energized by the God who loves me being present in my moment-by-moment.

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.

It is sad the the blog has become so "done".  I suppose, though, the realtime drama of Facebook is much more likely to feed our need for response.  I myself just like to rant and often don't really look for a reply...which is good because I usually don't get one.

I did recently notice that our friendly neighborhood casino is planning to build an "entertainment venue" to attract people to big name shows as a lure into their money vacuum.  It is interesting, when I railed about the vote to allow table games in the first place I suggested that when they (the casino) began losing traction because of competition, they would likely resurrect an effort to have a "entertainment district" that was denied by our city planners.  What silly planners...don't they understand the importance of maintaining the money flow into the casino owners' pit?  Wonder what comes when the other casinos build in kind...is this a downward or upward spiral?

Wait....wait.....

It'll be interesting to see how fast the explosions at the Boston Marathon are spun into the need for gun control.....,

Feelings are not the goal

I was reading this morning in the book of Judges.

It was a sad time when Israel was fighting with itself - between tribes they were killing each other and stealing each other's women to have multiple wives and added concubines.  Reading it and God's reaction to it makes it hard to comprehend how a people whose history is so connected with God could become so overwhelmed with falling for temptation that they disconnected it from what God wants and "reasoned" it out for themselves.  One particular piece was about some enemies attacking and insisting on taking a man that was a guest so they could sexually abuse him, and the "honorable" solution was to instead give the men a virgin daughter and a concubine so as to not dishonor their guest.  Needless to say, these men killed the girl in the process, initiating a horrible attack and revenge.

Further in my reading I moved to 2nd Corinthians, where Paul talked about the way, as he said "the dark god of this world" had infected the thinking of the Corinthian people, making them more likely to choose things that did not please God over those that did.  His (Paul's) focus in this writing was on how the people had become accustomed to pleasing themselves and expecting God to be about pleasure rather than the service He expects.

Recently Bill O'Reilly of Fox News made some comments about the whole marriage issue, that the traditional marriage side has "lost" the argument because the "Bible Thumpers" argued on the basis of the Bible, which Bill says has no place in the public debate.  He has crept across a line I am afraid our whole society drifts toward, just like the people of Israel did long ago and the people of Corinth did somewhat later.  Somewhere we, as a society, concluded that what God has said and how it affects lives is not relevant in public policy.  In the rush to eliminate any vestige of conflict between church and state, we are making God as an issue not relevant and leaving, instead, our "feelings" and what "pleases" us to judge right and wrong, determining social policy based on what makes us happy, what some believe is "fair",  instead of what history, tradition, and God established as norms over thousands of years.

I was sorry to hear Bill argue that we cannot have any mention of God or the Bible in public debate.  I believe it is a cop out, and, as Paul says, a cave in to "the dark God of this world".  If we eliminate God from our discussions and instead depend on our human intellect, that "dark god" knows we will eventually lean away from faith and pleasing God and defeat God's efforts on our own, saving that dark god the trouble.  And Bill O'Rielly has fallen into the trap.  His "logic" leaves no place to go, because we can't judge the right and wrong of a sacred institution without the point of view given by God, therefore defeating it because we believe desires rule over what is truly right and wrong.

Its a shame to see us drift toward so certain a fate.