Other

by

Why We Should Absolutely Accept Syrian Refugees


The political discussion today is whether or not the United States should accept Syrian refugees into this country. The plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty in theory states our general belief of those who want to immigrate to our country. Why, then, should that change now?

Terror – extreme fear. I looked up the definition of this word to verify my belief in its meaning.   ISIS is a terrorist organization by the world’s definition and its own. Their objective seems simple enough: instill as much fear into as many people as they can. And where ISIS exists in significant numbers, they will take our their animosities on innocent civilians. Worse, they do not discriminate. They are more than willing to visit their form of evil upon those who, in theory, embrace their religion! That is nothing new as Al Qaeda did the same thing in Afghanistan. The difference here of course is that while Al Qaeda, for the most part, 9/11 being the exception, practiced their form of evil mostly within the borders of Afghanistan, although they did extend it to northwestern Pakistan.

ISIS has decided to take their fight to the entire Middle East, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world. They are terrorists in every sense of the word and to the extreme. Their war has forced thousands of innocent Syrians to flee the own country for fear of their own lives. And as we have seen, these refugees have gone through Turkey and the Balkans seeking refuge in Austria and Germany.

The United States is insulated from these refugees because of the Atlantic Ocean and the ability of the refugees to travel, which is quite limited. And some would argue that the European nations should be able to absorb all the refugees who show up at their door. But is that the right thing to expect? No!

The argument against accepting these Syrian refugees is that they may well include ISIS terrorists. But that argument feeds directly into the intention of the ISIS terrorists. That is exactly how ISIS wants us to feel.

I believe that if the U.S. were to accept 10,000 refugees, as President Obama has suggested, that the the possibility of one of more terrorists gaining access to our country is close to a sure thing. So what? Are we so cowed by this possibility that we are not willing to take the chance? Do we have so little faith in our civil police, Homeland Security, and the FBI that we cannot trust them to maintain the peace for us? Are we really going to let ISIS revel in the fact that they have placed enough fear into us that we refuse refuge to thousands of deserving people? I really hope that is not what we have become. I absolutely think we should welcome 10,000 refugees or more! And I believe that the governors of the 20 plus states who have said they absolutely will not take Syrian refugee should be ashamed of themselves because they have shown their fear. Fear is exactly what ISIS wants them to feel.

by

Reflections of a Veteran on Veterans Day


As United States holidays go, Veteran’s Day is one of the newest. As a holiday by this name, it came into being in 1954. Prior to that, Veterans Day was known as Armistice Day commemorating the end of World War 1. World War 1 officially ended on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. Shortly afterward President Wilson declared November 11th a national holiday. Then World War 2 happened followed by the Korean War. As a veteran, President Eisenhower decided that rather than remembering a peace treaty for a single war, the day would be better served by recognizing the service of everyone who had ever served in the Armed Forces of the United States. But there are two additional groups of veterans who did not serve within the Defense Department who are also veterans and they are the members of the Coast Guard and the Merchant Marines. The Merchant Marines were a vital force during World War 2 transporting goods and troops to the European Theater of War. And the Coast Guard, whose primary mission is the protection of the U.S. Coast lines, was deployed to the Mekong Delta in Vietnam among other missions.

I entered the U.S. Army on February 19, 1968 and served on active duty until November 10, 1979. After that I served in the Massachusetts National Guard for several years. My years of service in the U.S. Army are many of my proudest moments in life. I am the son of a World War 2 veteran, my father served in the U.S. Army Air Corps in North Africa, Italy, and France. Two of my daughters are veterans as well. My eldest served as a U.S. Army Nurse in Kosovo and my next daughter has served in the U.S. Air Force in both active and reserve duty. She is still serving.

I am of the Vietnam era which many view as a low point of the U.S. history in war. But this needs to be put into perspective. All military forces, not just American, are a natural extension of a country’s political system and honors the decisions of the country’s political leadership. My experience in the Army is that we never discussed politics except maybe to criticize what we viewed a lack of support from time-to-time.   But I never once knew nor discussed the political persuasions of any of my brothers in arms. Such discussion served no purpose. I know from experience that at the highest levels of the military establishment, politics is very much a part of a soldier’s daily life but below the level of flag officers, generals and admirals, politics was generally non-existent. That was always a good thing.

All soldiers are required to complete basic combat training. Basic training is the great leveler. That is, regardless of a person’s background or appearance, the most important thing is learning how to be a soldier and what it means to serve with pride. It is a unique system found nowhere else in society, not even the police forces which copy many of the training techniques of the military. All members of the military are instilled with the concept of “duty, honor, and country.” That means that each member of the military has sworn to put his life on the line to protect his country from those who would do harm to it. This oath of allegiance has been in place since the Revolutionary War. It is an absolute and cannot be compromised.

Only the Civil War divided this country more than the war in Vietnam. When I volunteered to join the Army I did not say that I would only join if I would not be sent to Vietnam. There is no such option nor has there ever been one. Most veterans never saw combat duty but every veteran was eligible for it. I was sent to Korea in 1968 which was a war zone in those days. It was certainly not as hot as Vietnam but U.S. soldiers were still dying there. Why? Because they were doing their duty.

War does funny things to men. Greatness arises out of some of the most unexpected places. During the Civil War at the battle of Gettysburg, a former college professor from Maine, a very humble man, so distinguished himself that he became one of the first recipients of the Medal of Honor. He was Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. During World War 1, a former blacksmith and pacifist from Tennessee distinguished himself in battle to become a Medal of Honor recipient. Most recently a young man from Long Island, Lt. Michael Murphy, distinguished himself in Afghanistan to receive the Medal of Honor. Each of these men had one thing in common, they joined the service out of a sense of duty and in the worst of conditions their concern was completion of the mission and protection of their comrades. And I can assure you that none saw themselves as heroes. To a man they would tell you if asked that they were just doing their job. And in that sentiment is the common thread for all veterans. We did our job in difficult situations because it was the right thing to do and our sense of honor and patriotism were driving forces.

During my time in Korea we came under the threat of attack many times. The attack never came but maybe that was because we were there. We were enough of a deterrent. I seldom talk of my time in Korea mostly because I do not remember most of the details. But those who served in Vietnam are even more guarded in their speech. If you find a vet who served in Vietnam, the Gulf Wars or Afghanistan you will probably get a lot of resistance from them in the telling of their experiences. Why? Because war is and always has been an ugly affair. People at home hear of the deaths of soldiers and grieve them. Soldiers see the deaths of non-combatants, women and children, and mourn that. My personal experience with that came in the form of a visit to a Korean orphanage where the casualties of the ongoing conflict resided. To say it was heartbreaking is to minimalize the reality.

For 20 years following the Vietnam War the experience of veterans was something no one wanted to discuss. But the Gulf War changed that and the phrase “thank you for your service” came into being. I hope that such sentiment never goes out of fashion because as a veteran I am grateful whenever I hear it expressed. If you know a vet, give him or her a call on this Veterans Day and thank them for their service. When you see someone in uniform on the street where you are walking, thank that person for their service, after all, they have sworn to put their life on the line for you. Finally, most cities and towns in the United States have a war memorial. Take the time to visit it, look at the names listed, because they are the ones who gave their life for you.

by

It Is Time to Expand AMTRAK


During the first half of the 20th Century, Americans could travel virtually anywhere by train.  But as early as the 1920s, the American automobile was making inroads on travel by rail.  The US Government set on an ambitious goal of a U.S. Highway system which would crisscross the county.  Notable routes of that system still exist today.  U.S. Route 1, which travels from Northern Maine to Key West Florida is one.  Portions of the venerable U.S. Route 66 from Chicago to Los Angeles also still exist.  This paved road system coupled with affordable automobiles forced the nation’s railroad to abandon passenger traffic on many routes and eventually rip up those rail lines entirely.

In the 1930s intercity bus travel came into being. This is where companies such as Greyhound and Trailways found their beginnings.  Then in the 1950s, air travel boomed with the development of long distance air routes and a reduction in fares.  Also the 1950s saw the beginning of the Interstate Highway system.  These final two things nearly spelled the death knell for all rail travel.  To their credit, the nation’s railroads went on a spending spree by buying new equipment in the hope that a modernized fleet of rail cars would be enough to attract passengers.  That never succeeds and by the mid-1960s private railroads were petitioning the Interstate Commerce Commission on what seemed a daily basis, to abandon part or all of the passenger rail service.  They were losing money and in some cases threatening the company’s viability.  Even the mighty Pennsylvania Railroad and New York Central Railroad were losing money in the highly used northeast corridor.  Both went bankrupt and with several other smaller bankrupt railroads were combined into what was known as the PennCentral Railroad.  The PennCentral continued passenger service but quickly went bankrupt itself.

Congress knew that abandoning all passenger rail service in the Northeast was a bad idea. Therefore, Congress passed the Passenger Service Act of 1970.  This act brought into existence Amtrak.  Amtrak began service on May 1, 1971.  Only a small handful of railroads that provided intercity passenger rail service declined to join.  Their issue was mostly surrounding the government using its rails to conduct business.  Those railroads, none of which exist today, were the Boston & Maine Railroad, the Southern Railroad, the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad, and the Denver, Rio Grande and Western Railroad.

The pictures below show the extent of passenger rail service in 1962, 1967 and then a picture of the Amtrak system at its birth and finally a map of today’s system. Even a cursory look at the earlier maps shows a much more robust passenger rail system.

1962

1967

amtrack 1971

Picture below, Amtrak System in 2015

2015

In 1990 the State of Maine desired that Amtrak extend its service to its largest city, Portland, from Boston. Boston to Portland rail service had ceased in the mid-1960s.  The Maine Department of Transportation put forth a meager $37 million to return rail service to the 120 mile route.  It has since extended the route from Portland to Brunswick Maine with plans of a further extension to the state Capitol of Augusta and then to Bangor.  Service began in 1996 with four round trip trains which has since been expanded to 5 round trips.  Two trains continue from Portland to Brunswick.  This route has been declared a success that exceeded all expectations.  Even though this route does not travel through particularly populous areas, it attracts substantial passengers.  And one of the hoped for benefits of initiating this route, provided commuter service from Maine to Boston, has been successful.

Over the decades the anti-Amtrak debate has centered on its costliness, subsidies, and expected low ridership. The trains to Maine show that this need not be the case.  Central to making intercity rail travel attractive is frequency.  That is, when private railroad companies wanted to make a case for eliminating rail service completely on any particular route, they reduced service to a single train a day and made travel time long.  Outside of the Northeast Corridor, an Amtrak money maker, there are only a few routes in excess of 200 miles which see more than a single train a day.  I have made a list of some of those routes in the chart below.  All of these routes have been designated “high speed rail corridors” by the U.S. Department of Transportation.  Simply put, studies have shown these routes support a high volume of travelers.  It is believed that as our airways become more clogged, rail travel between these points should become more desirable providing the trains run both frequently enough and fast enough.

The chart below shows many of the designated high speed routes and the number of trains which serve those routes.

ROUTE EXISTING TRAIN SERVICE
NEW YORK – CLEVELAND – CHICAGO 1
NEW YORK – MONTREAL 1
NEW YORK – PITTSBURGH 1
PITTSBURGH – CLEVELAND 1
CHICAGO – DETROIT 4
CHICAGO – INDIANAPOLIS 1
CHICAGO – ST. LOUIS 5
CHICAGO – MIAMI 0
CHICAGO – MINNEAPOLIS 1
DETROIT – CLEVELAND 0
CLEVELAND – CINCINNATI 0
CLEVELAND – ST. LOUIS 0
ATLANTA – MIAMI 0
ATLANTA – MEMPHIS 0
TAMPA – MIAMI 0
DALLAS – LOS ANGELES 0
DENVER – LOS ANGELES 0
LOS ANGELES – LAS VEGAS 1
LOS ANGELES – SAN FRANCISCO 1
LOS ANGELES – BAKERSFIELD 0
SAN FRANCISO – SEATTLE 1

The chart above shows just how limited long distance intercity rail service is, and in some case non-existent.

Right now America is experiencing very low gasoline prices. There is a glut of crude oil on the world’s markets.  American oil companies have greatly increased production of American crude oil through technology.  But all these things are temporary.  While it is possible the “north coast” oil fields of Alaska may someday be mined and provide much larger reserves than now thought, that impact has its limitations.  The fact is, crude oil is finite and will one day become too expensive to drill, run out altogether, or the price of refined oil be prohibitive.  It is possible that at least ground transportation needs can be filled by electric motors but right now, those electric motor have serious distance limitations because of battery capacity.

Today, the overwhelming majority of railroad locomotives are run with diesel oil. But the technology, and in certain places the physical plant, for fully electric locomotion exists.  When other forms of transportation struggle with declining fuel availability, railroads will be able to make the switch with relative ease.

What all this has to do with existing passenger rail is simple. Sooner than later the price of gasoline is going to rise and with that the demand for alternative transportation.  Where air transportation is concerned, even though aircraft obvious do not need a road system, they still rely upon air corridors.  For example, there is a limited amount of airspace for aircraft traveling along the eastern and western seaboards.  Those airways are close to capacity right now.  The airspace of most large metropolitan areas is also clogged as anyone who has traveled by air has experienced when even though their flight takes off on time it fails to arrive at its gate on time.  That simply means airport capacity has been reached.

Conversely, rail travel seldom experiences such problems. The ability of Amtrak to carry passengers from Boston to New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC is almost limitless.  To its credit, Amtrak has done an excellent job addressing this but even more can be done.  For example, the Acela train, Amtrak’s high speed train, travels well below its top speed for most of the route for a variety of reasons.  Between Boston and New York, that reason is the rail line has too many curves which require rebuilding to allow higher speeds.  But this is the least of the intercity problems.

I find it amazing how little rail service there is between New York and Chicago. It is important, however, to remember the large cities along this route: Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago.  The New York City to Buffalo route sees a goodly amount of trains.  But from Buffalo onward there is but a single train.  It would seem reasonable that passenger travel between any two of the cities named should be more than enough to support half a dozen trains a day.

The lone train which travels beyond Buffalo to Chicago is the Lakeshore Limited. It arrives at Erie PA at 1:50 AM, and at Cleveland at 3:30 AM.  New York bound train arrives at Toledo at 3:20 AM and at Cleveland at 5:30AM.  These times are hardly convenient to the traveler.  The end-points for this train has trains from New York arriving in Chicago at mid-morning having departed New York in the early evening.  On the return trip the same is true, the train departs Chicago mid-morning and arrives in New York in the early evening.  The train is very convenient at its end points but of lessening convenience at intermediary points.  A person who wants to travel from Erie to Toledo will probably opt for bus travel over the train even though the train is far more comfortable and possibly even quicker.

If you consider the routes which have no rail service at all it is reasonable to wonder why, particularly in the Los Angeles to Bakersfield and Detroit to Cleveland. It is certain not for a lack of rails, they exist and in abundance.  I must assume the Congress is simply making excuses for not funding such projects or service expansion.  But if you return to the Boston to Portland Maine example, you will find that Congress’s excuses start to fall apart.  It really is the “if you build it, the will come” saying.

For most of its existence, certain groups of Congress has lobbied for discontinuing all long distance Amtrak Routes. What they are referring to, mainly, are four routes all emanating from Chicago and ending in Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, with the fourth route originating in New Orleans and terminating in Los Angeles.  These routes are the most heavily subsidized of any Amtrak route.  The New Orleans to Los Angeles route only runs 3 days a week.  But if you focus on only the end points, you fail to recognize the intermediary stops and the importance the train has to those cities.  Many of these cities have seen the airlines abandon them leaving only bus and rail service.  It is hard to imagine anyone would argue that long distance bus service is equal to rail.  Simple comfort would seem to dispute that but also the fact that such a passenger most likely would have to change buses to achieve his final destination where rail service would likely not require such a move.

Compared to the rest of the world, third world countries and all, America has some of the worst passenger rail travel in terms of availability and speed. Most of Europe, which rivals America in individual affluence, long ago saw the need for reliable and frequent rail service.  Anyone who has traveled those rails, as I have, has found the experience both easy and enjoyable.  Why then cannot America do the same?  Are we so in love with our automobiles that we refuse to consider alternatives?  Not when convenient service is offered as in the Boston to Washington corridor.  Today, many people who used to rely up air travel to go from Boston to New York, or New York to Washington are now opting for the train as not only is it far more convenient, but in terms of time spent traveling, it is a wash with air travel.

 

 

 

 

by

How to Curb Gun Violence in America


I am going to start by saying that I am not against the possession of any sort of gun by an individual. That includes assault rifles and other guns that people have railed against.  I live in the city but if I lived in the countryside I would probably like to own a rifle or two.  In my years in the US Army I always shot expert and really enjoyed shooting and so I am not predisposed to the banning of guns.

The NRA and others are quick to point out that the overwhelming number of gun owners are law abiding citizens. I agree with that generality but it is incomplete.  What I want them to also say is that they are responsible gun owners.  A responsible gun owner knows his weapon well and is well versed in its use, its upkeep and its safety.  A part of that safety includes securing so that children have no possible access to it and that even a burglar would have great difficulty in stealing one.  I do not believe for a second that most gun owners are that observant.

The other thing the NRA loves to state is that we do not need more gun laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have. On its face that sounds perfectly reasonable and to some extent it is.  But our existing laws in certain case fall far short of what is needed to keep the general public safe.

Recently, in Wisconsin I believe it was, a man bought a rifle and then turned it over to another man who could not have legally purchased a gun. Such transactions are of course illegal but expecting the police to prevent such actions is ridiculous.  They cannot possibly do it.  The other lacking law is what is referred to as the “gun show loophole.”  That simply means that any person can make a non-commercial gun transaction at a gun show.  Simply put, the seller has none of the obligations that a retail gun seller has.  The seller is under no obligation to do a background check of the buyer, to require positive identification or to make any determination of the buyer being prohibited from buying a weapon.  Only 18 states have enacted laws to at least curb such activities.  The other 32 states and 4 territories have no such provision.  Which means a person who is otherwise prohibited from purchasing a gun who lives in one of the 18 states that have laws covering private sales, need only go to a bordering state that has no such law and make his purchase.

The states with the highest rates of gun violence are also the states with the most unrestrictive gun laws, basically the entire south, except Kentucky. Alaska is also among the most violent. The next lower grouping of violent states are Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming and Montana. To its credit, Texas has “only” a moderate gun violence rate, meaning it is about middle-of-the-pack.  Least violent state are without exception those states with the toughest guns laws.  This included almost the entire Northeast, except Pennsylvania, the entire west coast, along with Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio and Utah.  (This data was gleaned from www.thinkprogress.org)

The NRA used to rant that if gun laws were to become more restrictive then only the criminals would have gun. That is some of the worst logic I have ever heard.  Ironically, it was the NRA itself in the late 1930s which advocated for stronger and more probative gun laws.  Maybe that was the logical reaction to the spate of gun killings by gangsters of the 1920s and 1930s.  They were key in passing a particular legislation in the 1920s called the “Uniform Firearms Act.”  Its president at the time, Karl Frederick said, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons… I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”  I do believe in the “sharply restrictive” portion of his statement but the licensing portion bears much consideration.

It seems to me that the ability of criminals to secure guns is far too easy. This says to me that there are far too many “law abiding citizens,” as the NRA and their followers would have us believe, who are selling their weapon with impunity to whomever they want.  These law abiding citizens in fact not the responsible gun owner the NRA would have us believe.  But the existing laws are far too weak or non-existent to prevent such transfers.

What I do believe is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners would have little to no problem with certain law that would in no way restrict which or how many guns they owned but which would make 100% gun accountability in the United States the standard way of doing business.

The NRA uses fear to mislead the general public. It broadcasts that certain legislations will restrict the law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun.  That, of course, is pure poppycock.

What I am suggesting is that any person purchasing a gun for the first time accept a background check which would include their name being run through the NCIC database. That is simply a database of all convicted felons.  This would be done though their local police office, sheriff’s office or state police office.  They in turn would be issued a license to purchase and possess weapons.  This, at least in part, already happens.  When they purchase a weapon they would have to present a photo ID.  The gun dealer would then enter his name along with the gun’s serial number into a national database and present the purchaser with a title for the gun, exact same thing as happens with automotive sales and ownership.  That information would be shunted directly to his local police department.  If at some future point he decides to sell the gun he need only go with the purchaser to his police station where the transaction would be completed with the gun’s title officially transferred.

Such legislation should happen at a national level but at least at the state level. Written into such laws can be language certifying and guaranteeing the truly law abiding and responsible citizen his continued right to access whatever weapons he wishes to purchase from whatever source.  It would, however, put an end to gun sales over the Internet and through the mail.  But more importantly, it would greatly increase the ability of criminals to come into possession of weapons.  A person who had had a weapon stolen from him need only turn over the title to his local police department and let them take it from there.  When that gun is finally recovered, the criminal would automatically face a felony charge of gun theft and illegal ownership.

I do not think these are unreasonable suggestions and definitely need better definition. But I believe that it is necessary to bring about a safer America and a big reduction in the amount of crime which includes gun violence.

by

Understanding the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights


When it comes to understanding their own history, Americans are horrible. To be fair, the manner in which U.S. history is taught leaves a lot to be desired. However, that does not excuse Americans from having a basic understanding of the events that shaped our country. When America was founded the settlers believed they would be an equal part of the British Empire. They were, after all, born in England and never believed their moving to a new continent would in any way change their status as citizens of England.

Americans adopted English law as the basis of their government. And every English settlement was a certified English corporate entity. And to that end almost all trade by Americans was with England. Americans exported cotton, wool, indigo and other raw materials to England. In return they got cloth, tea, kitchen utensils and other finished products. This lasted into the early 18th Century when American industry started coming into its own. For example, all goods shipped on the water were supposed to be carried on English ships however American ship owners took exception to this. As part of the “triangle trade,” Americans were supposed to send sugar and molasses to England. But rum loving Americans thought it far more economical to ship their sugar to the Caribbean and get their rum on the return voyage and one their own ships.

Then starting in the mid-18th Century England instituted a series of measures designed to bring the colonists into line. Taxing goods was nothing new but the King sent troops to America to insure that taxes were paid and English authority abided. Then in 1767 Parliament passed a series of laws that became known as the Townsend Acts. There was the revenue act, the customs act, the admiralty act, which were added on top of the quartering act of 1765. And finally in 1774 it passed the Boston Port Act, a law designed specifically to punish the belligerent population of Boston.

The 1770s also saw England replacing colonial elected governors with military governors and sending English judges to America to decide the fate of Americans brought to trial. This was meant to quell American resistance to English admiralty law but was used in other situations.

Gen. Thomas Gage, the military governor of Massachusetts and commander of 5000 British regular soldiers, considered Massachusetts residents “bullies.” After the Boston Massacre, December 1770, Gen. Gage said, “America is a mere bully, from one end to the other, and the Bostonians by far the greatest bullies.”  In 1774 Gage was engaging in a series of sorties designed to remove stores of guns and ammunition, gun powder, from colonial militia stores.  Prior to his assault on Concord, he had sent troops to Salem, Somerville, Plymouth, and Portsmouth NH in an effort to control local militia.  And as troops arrived in Boston from England, Gage ordered Boston residents to give them room and board.  That was a month prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord.

When the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1789 it was a compromise document.  The writers of the Constitution, for example, had written in a clause putting an end to slavery.  But to gain the support of 9 of the 13 colonies such a clause was not yet viable.  That basic document established our government, how it would be run, how power was divided, how elections were to be held, and some other basic items.

The full force of the basic Constitution took effect when the first election was finished and the government formed in January 1789.  Congress immediately took measures to amend the Constitution to frame some basic rights for individual Americans.  The basic document makes no such assurances.  In the years leading up to the revolution Americans could not speak freely.  Any words seen as inflammatory to British rule were enough to have a person jailed for treason, sedition, or other acts of malfeasance.  Hence the 1st Amendment is such because it free speech, and particularly that regarding the press, was deemed necessary for a legitimate democracy.  The second part of the 1st Amendment, that government can make no law with regard to religion, was a reaction to the close ties of the Church of England to English government.  That any single religion had power over a people of many religions was not acceptable.

The 2nd Amendment was simply the reaction to Gen. Gage’s overt attempts to keep Americans from having their own organized militia.  The American Revolution was fought largely by individual state militias that fell under the control of Gen. George Washington.  Most Americans believed, and with good reason, that a standing army controlled by a central government would wield its power over state militias.  This was not ironed out until after Thomas Jefferson left office and the War of 1812 commenced.  But the amendment was written specifically to reassure each individual state that its ability to raise and maintain an organized militia would be guaranteed for all time.  But this amendment effectively required states to purchase weapons for its citizen soldiers.  Prior to and during the revolution, each man was required to purchase his own weapon.

The 3rd Amendment seems irrelevant in today’s world, and it probably is.  But the Amendment was a direct response to the British Quartering act.  The American military is banned from quartering its troops in private residences.

The 4th Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.  This too was a direct response to common practice by British troops stationed in America.

The 5th Amendment guarantees due process and the right of Americans to remain silent in cases brought against them.  An important, though less known part of this amendment, is that it separates military law from civil law.  It also indemnifies Americans from double jeopardy.  Again, all these things happened to Americans while they were under British rule and particularly in the decade leading up to the revolution.

Amendments 6 through 8 insure that certain civil liberties in courts of law as being absolute with the 9th Amendment reinforcing the idea of equality under the law.

The 10th Amendment is the first amendment which arose solely from experience between the 13 original colonies.  Those colonies saw themselves as individual republics and were very mistrustful of a superior central government.  The southern colonies feared the power of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.  What they desired was a certain level of autonomy.  They wanted to be able to create laws of their own and that such laws be independent of any law made in any other state and the federal government.  For example, almost all the northern states had passed laws outlawing slavery.  The south was not ready for such legislation and did not want the influence of the abolitionist north affecting their individual state’s law.  This amendment guaranteed that.

There are a total of 27 Amendments, 26 in force the 18th, Prohibition, having been repealed.  It took a year to passed the first ten and the next 17 ever since.  Passing a Constitutional amendment requires agreement of two-thirds states.  With there being only 13 states that made the first ten fairly easy.  But in 1912, when Arizona became the 48th state, that meant an agreement of 32 states, a difficult feat.

Anyway, we call the first 10 amendments “The Bill of Rights.”  But that is a misnomer simply because the entirety of the Constitution is our Bill of Rights.  The elimination of poll tax, the right of women to vote, the end of slavery, all individual rights, are no less a part of a bill of rights.  But the ability of Americans to either misconstrue or not understand each portion of our constitution is shameful.  People cannot defend themselves against intrusion of their individual rights either by government or corporation or individual if they are not fully aware of what they are constitutionally guaranteed.

by

Looking For True Happiness? Take Care of Your Shortcomings


I have found that one of the best and most keep-able New Year’s resolutions, or any other sort of resolution, is to promise myself that I will identify and deal with all my shortcomings. It was a little less than 20 years ago that someone suggested I do just that so that I could be happier and feel freer. But he suggested I use the “seven deadly sins” (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, I had to look these up) as the basis for this discovery. I have to admit that once I saw what those sins are, I was skeptical, to say the least.  I thought some were actually desirable or that I was just not willing to relieve myself of them; they were comfortable and seemed necessary. But then it came to me, those “sins” are meant to be a starting point and to consider them only in their excess. That is, if I were lazy, sloth, was I being so lazy that it was detrimental to me in one way or another. Or if I over ate, gluttony, am I doing so in a way that endangers my health. When looked upon that way, it made more sense.

But then I had to do a self-inventory. In this it was suggested that I start at two points, fear and resentment. As I blogged about earlier, resentment is when I drink the poison I wish someone to fall ill from. Most resentments are between two people but a resentment can exist between a person and an organization. The latter is much easier to deal with so I will take it first.

A guy gets fired from his job. He complains that he was unfairly dealt with, that he was treated poorly by his boss, and that he was not appreciated. A good friend asks him a series of questions: How often were you late for work? How often were you out sick when in fact you were just looking for a day off? Did you always complete your assigned work on time, completely, and to your boss’s satisfaction? The guy honestly reflects upon those questions and finds that he was guilty on all counts. And then the friend asks if he had been the boss would he have fired himself. The guy realizes the answer is “yes” and suddenly the resentment vanishes.

Now I will deal with the tougher of the two, the resentment of one person towards another. This is particularly important when it concerns two family members. The worst are resentments children hold towards their parents. There are some exceptions to this, e.g. the father deserts the family and the children are resentful. This is one place where a parent richly deserves the resentment. Resentment in such cases are entirely understandable, however, the resentment still only hurts the person holding the resentment. Resentments are always poisonous for the person holding it. The person holding onto the resentment is not allowing for his other feelings to surface, a healthy reaction. Having experienced the feelings he can move on to resolutions that will allow him to go on with life without the resentment. He can also feel free to consider the reasons the parent deserted the family. I suggest cowardice as a good one. You label the person a coward, you feel sorry for them, and then you move on. You are not excusing the person from their misdeeds but are simply defining them as best you can. Comfort can be found in reason.

Sibling rivalries are so common that for such a thing to not exist is probably an exception to the extreme. One of the most common complaints and basis for resentment is the old “mom always liked you best.” But even in cases where that is true, to what end does it help to hold a resentment towards your sibling? It is common for the eldest to feel displaced by the youngest. I know that for fact being the oldest of three. But there came a time when I had to look at my parents as human beings and detach their parental status. I needed to consider their shortcomings as best I could fathom them. In doing so I quickly gained a better understanding for both my parents and realized that so much of parenting is trial and error. My father died at a young age so I don’t have a lot to draw on from him but my mother lived 89 years. As time passed I think I understood her well, understood those actions of hers I felt resentful towards, and in the end found I was basically an idiot for not having done this at a much younger age. My parents were exceedingly good people doing an exceedingly tough job, trying to raise me. I was a handful to say the least. My parents always did their level best but being human failure on occasion was inevitable. They are not to be faulted for those failing, just understood and where needed, forgiven. The central question to their relationships with me was, did they love me? The answer is a resounding yes and that being true, I need to be satisfied.

All this introspection brought me to a conclusion about all of humanity: fear is the most pervasive feeling all humans have and the most difficult with which to deal. And a large portion of the human race does a poor job in dealing with fear. But fear is the one shortcoming that also owns a necessary place in our existence. But fear holds a special place because of its dual status. Fear is that extremely basic thing within all of humanity that was responsible for our survival from the earliest of days. It kept the human race alive back in its infancy and it keeps us alive today. No soldier who has ever been on the battlefield was devoid of fear. Even those who receive medals and are revered for their bravery will admit that they had a healthy amount of fear going in. Fear puts the body on alert that it is in danger and that a defense may be necessary. Fear heightens all our senses. That is the good fear. That is the type of fear that we not only cannot overcome but which we do not want to overcome.

But even that type of fear, that primal instinct of self-preservation and all others, come from a person’s lack of knowledge when faced with situations that require an action of them. We fear judgement. We fear being wrong. We fear rejection. We fear heights. And when we look at ourselves long and hard, we find that we all have a rather long shopping list of fears. Those fears range from the easy to deal with to the impossible to deal with.

One of the more common fears is that of being judged, particularly when that judgement comes from a person with whom we have a personal relationship. This is a tough one because it is human nature to desire to always been seen in a favorable light. This fear, however, can lead us to another character defect, honesty. People will say they were less than honest to save a person’s feelings. You are not responsible for another person’s feelings! If being honest means hurting a person’s feelings it may be better that way. But if it is one of those rare occasions where hurting the person’s feelings achieves nothing, then be judicious with your words but keep each word fully honest. You might find it wise to respond by saying “I need to think about that” or words to that effect. All of us are confronted with questions everyday but not every questions needs to be answered an instant later. Many question needed to be considered at some length before being answered. Most of the time saying “allow me to think about that for a minute” should suffice. Sometimes you will need to think longer. Regardless, engage your mind before engaging your mouth.

But there is one thing which is absolutely necessary. You must talk about your fears with someone you trust, if not a therapist. Many times a fear that is bouncing around in our heads loses all its power when shared with another person. Just our saying the very words “this scares me” frequently reduces the level of fear if not eliminating it entirely. I can say with absolute certainty that regardless of what scares you that exact same fear is shared by others and may actually be very common. One of the best things which can happen with sharing a fear with another person, is that person validates our fear by admitting they share the very same fear. Another frequent result of admitting a fear is finding a resolution to that fear in the process.

I have already touched upon honesty but it deserves further discussion. I have adopted a principle of absolute honesty even to my own detriment. That simply means that when someone asks a question of me, particularly a question which will require me to reveal a part of me of which I am not proud, I will give a fully honest answer. The only qualification to that is that the person asking the question has a right to the knowledge I hold. My wife has a right to ask absolutely any question she wants and I in return have an obligation to answer her honestly. But my sister, parents, other relatives, and friends do not have a right to access that information. What I cannot do is lie instead of telling them it is none of their business.

I have some young friends who have decided to not drink anymore and they struggle with how to deal with friends who use peer pressure to get them to drink. I tell them when asked why they are not drinking to reply that they simply do not want to. And if that person persists even after having asked twice, I suggest that they ask the person questioning them, “why it is so important to you that I drink?” This is shifting the burden in place of lying or of revealing a part of themselves they consider private. You are questioning their motives.

At this point I need to bring up the principle of “owning your own crap.” Everyone screws up, some of us more frequently than we care to admit, and yet it is still true. One of the biggest lies we tell ourselves is “I wasn’t caught.” Yes you were! It does not matter that no one else saw your indiscretion, you saw it, you know about it and you need to own it. The principle here is you cannot get rid of any crap you do not own. That is just logical. Let’s say you put an old refrigerator out behind your house, then an old car next to it, then a box spring, and before long you have what appears to be a junk yard. The city comes by and tells you that you need to get rid of your crap because you are in violation of an ordinance. You tell them it’s not yours. As ridiculous as this scenario seems, this is something people do every day with regards to non-material crap. They deny they have done wrong, they deny they lied or were less than fully truthful, they deny that taking a bunch of paper from work is wrong, etc. But as long as they use denial of the truth as the barrier from taking rightful responsibility, they will suffer its consequences. The consequences is that these things are additive and they weigh upon you. That weight gets heavier and heavier and frequently leads to a loss of friends, relationships, of trustworthiness and even jobs. There are few things more freeing than to admit that you screwed up. Having taken ownership of the screw-up you can then commence a course of relieving yourself of that crap. This should bring into sharp focus the concept of denial as being a major shortcoming. People use denial regularly do not realize they are lying to at least one person, themselves, and probably others. It creates unnecessary barriers. It keeps them from enjoying a lot of happiness and freedom.

Some of my other shortcomings are laziness, procrastination, over eating, and many other things I just cannot think of at the moment. The thing is, I accept that I have each and every one of these shortcoming and that to overcome any one of them, I need to take some sort of affirmative action. I think it unlikely I will ever overcoming my overeating tendencies but I task myself with a certain level of exercise to overcome the shortcoming, or at least lessen its effect. It does not always work but it is a solution among the several available. My shortcomings keep me from being as happy as possible. But by acknowledging them and having a method of counteracting the shortcomings, I am assuring myself of much more happiness than by not doing these things.

by

Windows 10: A History of Windows and Review of Windows 10


Microsoft’s Windows 10 is happily a vast improvement over its Windows 8/8.1 versions.  I, foolishly, installed Windows 8.0 only my old desktop computer.  Suddenly gone were every single recognizable feather of Windows 7 and earlier versions.  Microsoft, for all its innovation and brainpower, seems to lack the ability to move smoothly between major designs in its Windows operating system.

Windows, however, was not always an operating system.  Windows was first released in 1985, version 1.0.  Few people ever saw it fortunately.  It was Microsoft’s clumsy attempt to mimic the Apple operating system of the day.  It was simply a software program that was engaged from the old MS DOS prompt, C:\.   You typed in “win” and it came up in all its glory.  Windows version 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 were more of the same but with added functionality.  Windows 3.1.1 was Microsoft’s first venture into the idea of networked computers and it worked rather well.  That version was released in 1992.  But it still was not an operating system.

Then Windows 4.0, better known as Windows NT was released in July 1996.  The Windows operating system had finally arrived!  But there was one problem.  Windows NT did not play well with non-Microsoft software which was still in abundance in those days.  Microsoft Word, for example, had a formidable competitor in WordPerfect.  WordPerfect had been developed my Brigham Young University for use on the Data General mini-computer.  When the DOS world arrived it was quickly migrated.  In the early days of the PC most people preferred the more robust and well developed WordPerfect to the buggy MS Word.  But the writing was on the wall as the Microsoft operating system, MS-DOS dominated the PC market for all computers but Apple.  IBM tried to gain a foothold with its disastrous, though very forward thinking, OS/2 operating system.  There was also LINUX, a PC based version of the popular engineering operating system UNIX.  That was fine if you did not mind running through some 25 floppy disks just to load the system and dedicate hours of a single day to complete the task.  But by the mid-1990s all PCs were manufactured using Microsoft Windows.   Other software companies followed this by making their products Microsoft compatible, first to the MS-DOS operating system and then to Windows.

In 1995 Microsoft released Windows 95 and then in 1998 released Windows 98 each of which was a more user friendly version of Windows NT.  Windows NT did not go anywhere, that is, it was still being produced, but it had a number of characteristics which were baffling to the average user.  Windows 95 and 98 proved to be a huge winner.  They were stable, easy to use, and well-integrated with the Microsoft Internet Explorer which was also very user friendly.  In 1998 the concept of the Internet as a tool for all people was still new, even though it had existed since 1983.  The Internet was almost entirely the bastion of the government, large educational institutions and the business world.  But with Internet Explorer, and other Internet search engines, the general public quickly became aware of its existence.

Then came the Microsoft disasters, Windows ME and Windows 2000.  Widows ME, which stood for Millennium Edition, was an unmitigated disaster.  I had excitedly loaded it onto my computer only to find in short order that the ME operating system had huge problems with memory allocation.  Old software from other companies either worked poorly or not at all on ME.  Realizing it had released a complete lemon, Microsoft quickly brought order back to the universe with its 2001 release of Windows XP.  Smart consumers had stayed with Windows 98 and were reluctant to move to XP but as time passed most did.  Even though it is 14 years old, the XP operating system is still being used by millions of people.  Its stability and ease of use kept confidence very high in the product.

Next Microsoft came out with Windows Vista.  It announced its new and wonderful system on network television commercials.  We could expect a whole new world.  What happened, however, was something entirely different.  I loaded up Vista and suddenly felt like I had been thrown back to the hostile Windows ME.  There was nothing good about this product.  To be fair, it was faster than XP but it challenged you to use it.  The user interface was a lot of things but it was definitely not user friendly.  As complaints about that quickly piled up Microsoft, not as quickly as with ME, developed Windows 7 and order was brought back to the universe.

By 2012 the touch screen universe, driven by smart phone technology, was all the rage.  Microsoft introduced Windows 8 as its venture into that universe.  Trouble was, people with PCs and laptops, for the most part, were not in the least bit interested in touch screen technology adorning their non-touch screen computers.  The Windows 8 user interface challenged you to use it.  Of course, I loaded it onto my desktop and disappointment was almost immediate.  Even though I knew the answer, I looked to see if I could revert to the user friendly world of Windows 7.  Microsoft does not allow for that possibility and so I had two choices, tough it out with Windows 8 or buy a new computer.  Fortunately my desktop was old enough that opting for a new computer which came loaded with Windows 7 was a great option and I took it.  That computer has Windows 7 still on it.  That is an important distinction for this article because I am writing this on my laptop which has Windows 10 installed upon it.

My old laptop had the bad manners to decide to go into its death throes this past week.  Fortunately for me, this weekend, August 15-16, Massachusetts has a no sales tax weekend in force.  I took advantage of that and got myself a new laptop with Windows 10 loaded.

Windows 10 has the look, at least in part, of Windows 7.  It certainly does not present the challenges of usage that Windows 8 did.  Back when I had people working for me who were developing software I always made one pronouncement to them about its development.  I told them that software should always be “painfully obvious” in its usage.  That means that even a person who is challenged by computer technology can with minimal trouble navigate his way around the software.  The front page of the software should always have all its uses in plain view with tons of help a keystroke away.

This brings me to my assessment of Windows 10.  I give it a grade of B-.  That’s pretty high considering I would give the likes of Windows ME and Windows 8 an F.  I am sure Microsoft developed this version with its Version 7 in mind.  Windows comes, after you log in, to the desktop design of Windows 7.  In the lower left corner there is the friendly “command center,” I like to think of it.  You click there and up comes a menu of items to choose from including the most popular programs.  But missing from the list is one item I use a lot, the “control panel.”  For reasons I cannot grasp, Microsoft decided to replace, in part, the control panel with a “settings” menu.  This in itself is fine but it is only a subset of a complete control panel.  The control panel is where you add printers, remove software, set up home networks, etc.  But, the control panel does still exist!  You cannot place the “settings” on your desktop, where I like such things, but you can put the control panel there, which I have done.  Microsoft should have made provision for having that settings item on the desktop.

As I mentioned before, Microsoft bundles its Windows with Internet Explorer.  Windows 10, however, does not have Internet Explorer, at least as it used to exist.  In its place Microsoft has, in its inimitable wisdom, placed “Edge.”  This is “an” Internet search engine but a very unfriendly one.  As I said, software necessarily needs to be “painfully obvious” and Edge is anything but.  Even though I have only had it a short time, I have already quickly changed over to Google’s Chrome, something I had spurned doing prior to this.  What is wrong with Edge?  Where to start?  Well, when it comes up gone are all the menus which always existed on Internet Explorer.  These menus, which could be expanded or contracted as you wished, are not only not present but cannot be created on Edge.  I can best describe Edge as the Windows 8 of search engines.  Worse, the search engine portion of it is not particularly obvious.  The default search engine is Microsoft’s Bing, of course, which can be changed to google or other search engine, but it is not at all obvious how to do.

It is my recommendation that if you use Internet Explorer a lot and are now using Windows 7, do not switch to Windows 10.  Even if you are buying a new computer, many, if not most, can still be purchased with Windows 7 on them.  Windows 10 is a decent enough platform but it has user interface bugs which need to be ironed out.  I would suggest you stay clear of Windows 10 at least until the middle of 2016.

by

Can the Roman Catholic Church Be Dragged Out of the 12th Century?


I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church.  It was a curious upbringing because my mother was the Catholic but my father was a Unitarian.  It was the odd confluence of an extremely conservative church, Catholic, with an extremely liberal church, Unitarian.  And in those days, the 1950s and 1960s, marriage of Catholics to non-Catholics was discouraged, to say the least.  My parents were married in 1946 in the Rectory of St. Michael’s Church in North Andover Massachusetts.  Church weddings of that sort were prohibited in those days.  My mother saw to it that I was in church every Sunday and in Sunday school immediately following.  As I got older I was required to attend religious classes once a week after school.  First communion and confirmation were a given and something we all actually looked forward to.

In the early 1960s Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI oversaw certain transformations in the Catholic Church.  Prior to then the Catholic mass was said entirely in Latin.  Latin was removed in favor of the language spoken locally.  The American Catholic Church embraced the idea of bringing folk music into its services.  It seemed the Catholic Church was embracing the idea of change and was becoming a friendlier and less feared church than it had been.  In the years since the church also embraced the idea of having deacons, lay people who passed out communion, and lay people who assisted in performing the mass.  Also, most nuns’ habits gave way to ordinary clothing.

Unfortunately, since the death of Pope Paul VI, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have reverted to its extremely conservative ways.  In doing so it has once again turned its back on the needs of Catholics word-wide.  The church seems to be in total denial of its responsibility to its membership.

The Archdiocese of Boston, one of the largest diocese by membership in the country, has such difficulty in attracting young men to its seminary that it usually graduates and ordains new priests in numbers less than 10.  I suspect the reason for this is simple, the church still requires a lifetime promise of celibacy by its priests.  This is contrary to every human predilection known.  And of courses, priests cannot marry.  Some years ago I had a good friend who was a priest who had just entered his 40s.  He could no longer deny his attraction to women and observe his vow of celibacy.  He was an excellent priest but found it necessary to leave the priesthood as he found the requirements imposed upon him to be untenable.  I think this is a very common occurance.

Along this same line, I had to travel to Oklahoma City for business about 15 years ago.  My stays out there became extended and encompassed weekends.  I visited one of the 3 Catholic Churches there where I found an aging priest.  He told me he could not retire because there was no one to replace him even though he was in his late 70s.  I also found out that there are many small cities in the plains states that have Catholic Churches but no priest assigned.  They are served by traveling priests.

The obvious solution to this problem seems simple enough, allow priests to marry.  But for reasons which defy logic, the very conservative College of Cardinals steadfastly refuses to even consider such a change. Here is their logic as presented on catholic.com: “Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.”  But this was a change the Roman Church made in 1139.  The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and others, never adopted this belief.

Pope Francis recently reminded, and reaffirmed, that divorced Catholics who had remarried and not gotten an annulment of their first marriage, are “living in sin” and therefore cannot receive communion!  I believe the Catholic Church is the only major church in the world which prohibits its member from remarrying without getting an annulment.  I once asked a priest about an annulment and he explained that in essence it is a declaration that an actual marriage never existed.  For me to have pursued, and received, such a declaration would have been essentially perpetrating a huge fraud.  I was married to that woman for 14 years and had 3 children by her.  Of course it was a marriage!  But the Catholic Church states it wants me to still attend mass but I just cannot take part in the most important part of the service.  This is like inviting me to a birthday party but telling me I cannot have any cake and ice cream.  The concept is absolutely absurd!

Next we have birth control and abortion.  I absolutely understand the church’s stand on abortion, it is entirely contrary to its most basic beliefs.  And while I absolute agree with the prohibition regardless of circumstance, I also believe it to be an entirely personal moral dilemma and that each woman needs to make a decision based on her on conscience and without the intrusion of outside influence.  It is a discussion between her and the God of her understanding.

But other forms of birth control are an entirely different matter.  The use of condoms and contraception are a modern day necessity.  For a married Catholic to follow the church’s teachings exactly, they would need to go contrary to the basic and loving desires, forgoing all sexual contact out of fear of pregnancy.  This is an absolutely absurd idea and prohibition.

Finally is the church’s stance towards gay people.  Their stance is easy to understand in the light of what the Bible says. I have two problems with that however.  First, all the various versions of the New Testament today are translations from ancient Greek.  But the problem is that Jesus Christ spoke in the Aramaic language, not Greek.  This means at the very least there was a translation made.  But was that translation from an oral tradition or the written word?  No one knows.  But we do know that Aramaic had about 5000 words total.  Now compare that with the over 1 million words in the English language today to get a feel for the problem.  Noted writer, Dr. Isaac Asimov, related how the word for young girl and virgin in Aramaic are the exact same word.  It is my belief that the first person relating the story of the birth of Jesus was referring to Mary as a young girl because we believe she was likely as young as 12 when she married the much older Joseph.  That she was a virgin was a more important concept to 10th century Rome than 1st Century Palestine, Turkey, and Greece.  The mysticism surrounding a virgin birth was more valuable to Dark Age church leaders than explaining a sexual congress between Mary and Joseph.  By the 12th century the Catholic Church was all about putting even the mention of sexuality into the closet.  What does all this have to do with being gay?  Simple, it is my belief that large portions of the New Testament are both incomplete and incorrect translations.  The Gnostic Gospels sheds some light on this with its Gospel of Mary, something the Roman Church has chosen to distance itself from.  But more to the point, it could mean the admonition of one man laying with another may have originally been a prohibition of adult men bedding boys, something which happened frequently in those days, particularly in traveling merchants.  That gay men existed at the time of Jesus is undeniable.  But so did pedophilia and I believe Jesus saw that as a much more serious problem than man’s inability to understand gay love.  One is an abuse of power, position, and children, while the other is a different sort of love.  I do not understand love between same sex individuals but I do accept it.  It just as real as any other sort of love and that is all I need to know.

To be fair, the Roman Catholic Church is not alone in favoring certain absolutes of human behavior.  Evangelical and other conservative Christian churches in the world espouse many of the same tenants.  But it is a requirement of any church to tend to the needs of its followers.  The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely failing in this respect and that is likely the primary reason it has seen church attendance plummet and parishes closes even though the number of people who identify themselves as Catholic rises.

The Roman Catholic desperately needs to make itself more attractive to all its members, not just those who adhere to its rigid tenants.  I suspect that if all those Catholics who regularly attend church today were to suddenly stop attending church because they violate one or more of these basic tenants, Catholic Churches worldwide would become empty.  The Catholic Church does not lack for theologians, both lay and ministerial, who desperately want the changes I have mentioned.  But as long as a very small and very conservative group of Cardinals are allowed to continue as they have, church attendance and membership will continue to fall.  But worse, the church will continue to ignore many of the most basic teachings of Jesus Christ.

by

Finding That Special Someone


You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find your prince. That sounds extremely trite and hackneyed but it is also true. It is always better to find Mr. Right, or Mrs. Right as the case may be, than Mr. Right Now. But there comes a time when we all want to stop dating and start a long term relationship. The problem seems to be with the first date and how your figure out if he, or she, is someone you want to be with. In doing so, you have taken on an almost impossible task. It is rare that you find a person who you have just met as being someone you are certain about, someone with whom you feel perfectly comfortable. In that light, give yourself three or four dates before you come to any conclusions about someone. That is assuming you do not find something in the person you have just met that you consider to be a deal breaker. A deal breaker for me, when I was dating, was smoking. I made it known up front that I could not be with some who smokes. Once or twice my date denied she smoked but then she never should have kissed me because non-smokers are very sensitive to the existence of nicotine.

That leads me to rule number one of dating, honesty. Many people today attempt to find partners via dating websites. That is all well and fine, I found my wife that way, but total honesty is a necessity. That means you do not put up a five year old picture because you favor how it makes you look. If, however, that is the only picture you have, be certain to mention that in your profile. Dishonesty of any sort should be, and usually is, a deal breaker. You have a right, and should insist upon that from the person you are interested in.

Once you decide you want to meet someone make that meeting at a location which does not serve alcohol. I like coffee shops. The reason is simple, you do not want your judgment and perception, or his, clouded by alcohol. You also do not want that person using alcohol as a crutch to better present himself. If you know you are shy and withdrawn, you need the other person to be accepting of that. This too is honesty. And you need to know how the other person acts fully sober. A shy person can still be an extremely attractive person.

Eye contact is not the sign of honesty, it only shows the person is capable of maintaining eye contact. Inveterate liars have no problem maintaining eye contact. But you can get to the truth of the other person by asking questions that are really important to you. Ask the other person questions like where they work and what their plans are for the future regarding their profession. Ask what they like to do in their free time, about their siblings and parents to see how they handle what should be important relationships. A bad relationship with a parent or sibling should not be a deal breaker. I like to say all families are crazy, it is just a matter of degree. But it will speak to how they handle difficult and important relationships.

If you love cats or dogs, you probably want to find out how your date feels about them. If you are a college grad and want the same in your date find that out. If you cherish your independence, make sure your date enjoys the same feeling. If your dating history suggests you have dated people who have eventually cheated on you, ask yourself what sort of person he generally was in the beginning and if you are seeing that in your new date.

Let date one be an interview only. You meet at the coffee shop, or where ever, and when you leave that location each of your goes your own way. Sex needs to be off the table.

For women, do not be afraid to tell the person you have met, after an hour or so, that you need to check in with a friend that you are safe and well. If he is offended by this, leave, he is obviously insecure and unconcerned with what is right for you. A keeper will intuitively understand and encourage your action.

If you got to the location of your date via public transportation, do not allow your date to take you home, regardless of how good you feel about him. If he becomes insistent, it is not wrong for you to take that as the sign of a controlling person, someone you probably do not want to be with. A good mate respects your wishes. Respect is absolutely necessary in a successful relationship. Demand respect.

Most importantly, be yourself. Do not try to be the party girl when you dream is to be a soccer mom. Talk about things you find fascinating and things you love to do. Accept that you are going to find things he likes or does that you do not like. Just consider it as a piece of the whole and how much it would matter in a long term relationship. For example, I love NFL football and make my wife an NFL widow. She neither likes nor understands football but we have more than enough things we do together, and things she does by herself, that more than compensate. For example, she enjoys her “girls’ night out.” I actually encourage it.

The first date ends when you want it to. If you do not want to see him again, say so. If he asks why mention the deal breaker and that as a deal breaker, it is not open to compromise. However, if you did not come across any deal breaker, I recommend you move on to date two. Keep date two limited to being taken out to dinner or something similar which requires conversation. This means going to see a movie or concert is inadvisable as such things do not promote an exchange of ideas. But unlike date one, date two can cover more important and intimate things. Thoughts about marriage should only come up as a natural extension of other discussions but not as a question in itself. The early dates should encompass only your mutual compatibility and nothing more.

Those first dates must be about your mutual compatibility. You need to see if he would make a good friend and if you say no to that, then say no to continuing on. With each succeeding date, you should feel increasingly comfortable in his presence. You should feel less and less guarded about your feelings and the things you share because you are increasingly confident that he will accept you as you are. You should be able to say something as simple as you are afraid of thunderstorms and have him offering you comfort and not laughing at such things. We all have fears and shortcomings. That special person will want to be at your side no matter what.

When you start this sort of dating, remember the goal, to find a life partner. To a reasonable extent, control the conversation. Know your boundaries and do not let him inside any boundary before you are ready. Have a firm grasp on your deal breakers and what is important to you, and make sure he meets such expectations. Compromise well within your comfort zone and if you are not comfortable with any comprise then don’t! Your future happiness depends upon your up-front willingness to stay within your principles.

by

The Sins of the NFL


The NFL, and Roger Goodell in particular, created a monster that has been wreaking havoc on the villagers ever since. And after millions of dollars spent and over 210 days since the crime of the century, in NFL terms, what do we really know now? There are only three reasonable conclusions a rational person can come to from everything that has been reported: one, 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were measured and found to be below the minimum league standard and, two, existing NFL procedures were either circumvented or broken by the New England Patriots organization and, three, the NFL was lacking in protocol to insure the integrity of game day balls.

A reasonable person and good leader would have, by January 31, 2015, fined the Patriots $275,000 or more for the ball violations and moved on. Unfortunately there were other players in this game who desired something more. We now know that those individuals were Ryan Grigson of the Indianapolis Colts and the Baltimore Ravens’ special teams coach. To be fair, it is likely other teams have complained about how the Patriots go about business over the years. But with the Colts playing the Patriots for the AFC championship the NFL felt the need to look into the Colts’ complaint. The league has both the right and responsibility to take such actions. But for reasons we will never know the league decided to play the game of “Gotcha!” That by itself was bad enough except a league official roamed the Patriots’ sideline at half-time and proclaimed, in particularly foul language, that the Patriots had been caught and were going down. His actions were reprehensible.

Roger Goodell had two choices that Monday morning, fine the Patriots for what had been found or launch an investigation. He decided it would be a lot more fun to open Pandora’s Box and see what flew out. But what Goodell failed to realize was that making visible the failures of the Patriots his own would necessarily come to light. But an extremely weak league leadership decided to make a murder mystery out of an illegal left turn violation.

For months now the focus has been on how the Patriots went about deflating footballs and how Tom Brady was involved. After he spent about $4 million, Ted Wells only conclusion, with regard to the Patriots, should have been that the Patriots organization acted contrary to NFL rules concerning the security and transportation of footballs. The actions of their ball boys show that to be true beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

But Ted Wells in all his wisdom declared, “But when you combine the break in protocol, the text messages, and the science, we felt comfortable reaching a judgment.” He is absolutely correct regarding the protocol, of dubious judgment regarding the texts, and entirely wrong regarding the science.

I accept the lapse in protocol as proven, it was. The text messages are a different thing however. Most damning was McNally calling himself “the deflator.” The Patriots foolishly tried to pass such a reference as the guy desiring to lose weight. Ridiculous! But the one question that needed to be asked of McNally, but never was, at least by Wells, was, “How long have you called yourself ‘the deflator?’” I suspect, and believe, that this moniker may well go back as far as 2007 when Brady and Manning got the league’s blessing to do things to the game balls so that the balls felt good to them. I suspect balls were tossed to Brady by the equipment manager and Brady would either accept or reject them because of how they felt in his grip. He likely complained about their inflation level and demanded they be deflated a little. But it is unlikely he either knew or considered league standards for inflation. This likely went on for years with McNally taking air out of balls on so many occasions over the years that he jokingly called himself “the deflator.” This in itself is damning to the Patriots because it shows a lack of control over their personnel. It is the job of equipment managers and those who work under them to thoroughly understand NFL regulations regarding any and all types of game day equipment for which they are responsible. The Patriots were obviously lax in this regard and absolutely deserved to be punished. The degree of punishment leveled in this particular situation is beyond any reasonable explanation to include, but not limited to, the integrity of the game.

As for the science, the only conclusion any reputable scientist can come to, given what was known, is that the 11 footballs were outside acceptable limits. How they got there is not provable. You cannot apply the gas law, or any other scientific measure, for one simple reason: there exists no verifiable starting point. A good and thorough scientific experiment requires repeatable and verifiable conditions. To do this the scientist would want all 24 game day balls. The first thing they do upon gaining possession of those balls is test their integrity, that is, they inspect the balls for flaws, leakage at the valve and all other points on the ball. That done they test to balls using very exacting conditions that mimic the game day. Of greatest interest to the scientist would have been the particular ball that lost the most pressure. That ball would be tested multiple times in an attempt to either show or disprove that the amount of pressure lost was natural or as the result of human intervention.

Any business that prides itself in its research abilities prides itself in being able to inform the customer of results which go contrary to their expectations. But we have no evidence that Exponent, the company Wells hired to do the scientific investigation, advised Wells of problems with the investigation either prior to or during the process. As someone who has done such investigations, I would have advised Wells that I would need the exact state of all 24 footballs prior the beginning of the game and that lacking such information any conclusion would be speculative at best. We do not know if Exponent ever said this to Wells but it is a reasonable question to ask.

The NFL, and Roger Goodell in particular, had one last chance to get in front of this whole debacle when the Wells Report was released. The report actually did a good job of showing the shortcomings of many individuals and organizations. It showed the Patriots organization did not follow NFL rules regarding the security of footballs. It showed that exact same thing for the referees present at the championship game. They too are fully responsible for ball security but not a single one of those officials took the Patriots to task for allowing McNally to even touch a single ball. It was not McNally’s job to carry footballs to the field of play and the officials should have known that. Furthermore, considering the gravity of the game, the head official should have assigned one of his team to accompany the footballs to the field. And lastly, the NFL was shown lacking in rules regarding care and security of the footballs. It acknowledged as much when it released its revised standards at the end of July 2015. All Goodell needed to do once the Wells Report was released was acknowledge that errors in judgment had been made at all levels. He still could have fined the Patriots, and should have, and ended this whole mess in a single act. It would not have been popular with a majority of the owners, his employer, but it would have been the right thing to do. But such a pronouncement would have shown he was truly concerned with the integrity of the NFL. A good leader recognizes that there are times he will have to stand against popular opinion in doing what is right.

Given all this, Tom Brady’s involvement in all this, even at the most egregious level, is rendered moot. Had those individuals and organizations involved in game day activities done their job, Brady could not possibly have been able to affect ball inflation. To the contrary, game officials would have quickly become aware of Brady’s involvement and been able to quickly and unequivocally correct and report his actions. That, of course, did not happen. The integrity of the game had been compromised for years because of the NFL’s own lacking. The NFL never cared enough to exhaustively define what game integrity involved and then put rules in effect which would guarantee it. Had such rules existed, this whole affair would have been reconciled prior to the AFC Championship game, Wells would never have been hired, and few people would even remember anything ever happened.