Other

by

It is God’s Will! Really?


I really and truly hate the expression, “it was God’s will.” Really? How do you know? To be fair, the overwhelming majority of people living in the United States were brought up on one of three basic belief systems: Jewish, Christian, and Islam. Each of those general religions loves to use the expression in question. But my question to any of them is, “how do you know?” If you nail any of them down they will probably refer to some ancient religious text which supposedly gives weight to their contention.

But don’t each of these religions refer to God as a “father” meaning, of course, a family member.   And each contends that God is also the epitome of love, kindness and understanding. Great! Then how can you call it God’s will when an earthquake strikes a region and kills thousands of people? Are you telling me that either God wanted those people dead? As a father I believe it a part of my job to protect my children from any sort of harm. This actually makes God sound like some sort of sadistic being rather than the all loving purported.

Another of my favorites is when a person comes down with a deadly form of cancer and that somehow is God’s will. Again, really? God favors kind and loving people with deadly diseases as some sort of test of their love for Him? It makes it sound like He lacks love for the person involved. Which, as a side note, brings up another of my annoyances: unfairness. People love to say how unfair it is when someone is visited by some life altering, or worse, life ending disease while they are young. No! It is entirely fair! Diseases and disasters do not go around picking out individuals if affect. Fairness exists entirely in human interaction, that is, how one human treats another human. Diseases and disasters simply do not have the capacity to care.

If the basic claims about God of these three religions are to be believed then God could only want for our happiness, good health, and long lives. God does not punish nor reward any living being but saves such things for the afterlife. God does not take the side of one nation over another in a time of war, or for that matter, in any sort of human contest, conquest or endeavor. If God so favored any group of people does it not make sense that He would have protected people against the likes of Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Adolph Hitler or any of a long list of evil persons? But He did not which means His is an entirely hands off position. What happens to us here on earth is always the result of our own actions, or lack of action, or of natural phenomena. And that is my universe. If tomorrow I am told I have some sort of stage 4 incurable cancer I will not look upon it as God’s will or even bad luck. It will simple be the end result of a long string of natural events, and sometimes, many times, we humans are incapable of putting together all of those events or even explaining them. I accept my situation as it is. I promise myself to be as kind, courteous and thoughtful as possible. In the end, after all, is that not what each of us is evaluated on, by those who know us and God?

by

UFOs: Where Would They Come From and How Did They Get here; What Do They Want?


Since the late 1940s there has been almost an obsession with the existence of UFOs. For the purpose of this paper, I am going to assume they do exist. That done they must be explained as to where they came from and how they got here. Neither is at all easy.

I must establish certain basics for this conversation to continue. First, distance in the universe is measured in light years. A light year is not a measurement of time but of distance, 5,878,499,810,000 mile to be exact.  That is 5,878 billion miles.  To put that in some sort of context, Pluto is 3.67 billion miles from the Sun or 3.65 billion miles from Earth.  Regardless, it took the New Horizons space craft almost 10 years to travel that short distance, relative to the whole universe or even our own galaxy.  At the speed of light, that trip would have taken about 5 hours.  The closest star to us is Proxima Centauri at 4.24 light years.  The closest galaxy, Andromeda, is 2.537 million light years away.  The edge of the known universe is some 13.5 billion light years away.

Now, Einstein postulated, and physicists have since proven, at least to some degree, that the faster you need to go the more energy you need.  That part seems obvious however when you talk about going the speed of light they speculate you would need an infinite amount of energy, an impossibility.  All right, so let us say our visitors figured out how to travel half the speed of light, highly unlikely, but even so, if they were from Proxima Centauri, their journey here, one way, would take almost 9 years.  And if they could only manage one tenth the speed of light, the journey takes 42 years.  Light travels at 670.6 million miles an hour.  The New Horizons spacecraft traveled at 36,300 miles per hour.  And somehow we need to get to 67 million miles an hour to have any sort of reasonable chance of visiting our nearest neighbor.  We have not a clue how to do that but that does not mean distant civilizations have not resolved that problem.

In his general theory of relativity, Einstein defined space and time.  We hold fast to that principle today.  But physicists have noted that the space/time continuum can be bent as evidenced in the existence of black holes.  Our own Sun causes and bending of that as well, just not to the degree a black hole does.  From this, scientists speculate that through this bending process large distances in space can be conquered through this bending process.  For example, imagine a sheet of 8 ½ by 11 paper and that is space/time.  Take one edge and fold it towards the other.  Now if you are sitting on the one edge the trick becomes jumping to the other because of the bend.  If a very advanced civilization has resolved that problem then the crossing of great distances become a much easier thing.  Gene Roddenbury’s imaginative Star Trek may have inadvertently supplied us the answer is his use of “warp speed.”  That warping is of the space in front of the space craft and this is how physicists imagine it might be accomplished.

The how to get here resolved, more or less, we are left with the questions of who and where?  It is good to note that 100 years ago humans believed they were the only intelligent life forms in the universe.  This, of course, is a very arrogant belief.  Today’s astronomers are discovering planets outside our own solar system all the time.  They have discovered nearly 2000 planets, exoplanets they call them for their existence outside our solar system.  These planets have been attached to 1225 stars with a number of stars having multiple planets orbiting them.  As we continue to gaze skyward that number will and is climbing.  But even more importantly, these same brilliant scientists have calculated the possibility of the existence of intelligent life form existing anywhere in the universe.  They have decided that it is a certainty.  We are just now discovering life on other planets and moons in our own solar system which, by extension, leaves us with the almost absolute certainty of life existing in every galaxy in the universe.  And how many galaxies are there?  At latest count, over 100 billion!

I suspect that we have been visited by extraterrestrial life forms who find our planet a curiosity and nothing more.  The most likely scenario is that they, like us, are on scientific fact finding missions.  At some point they may want to contact us but thus far have not found any good reason.  We just are not that interesting.  Such scientists have likely encountered a thousand other civilizations at various points in their existence, and having studied them categorized us as being just like one or more of those thousands of other civilizations.  We simply do not warrant greater consideration.  But if they do decide to contact us, I suspect we will have to prove ourselves as being a lot more worthy than we are now.  We as a race love war and violence far too much for an extraterrestrial scientific expedition to take a chance on us as we now exist.

by

Where Has America Gone?


I went to graduate school to study U.S. History. I have always wondered how we, as a country, have gotten to where we are. I still wonder that but at least now I have a good working knowledge of the forces which brought us to this day. I have a deep appreciation of George Santayana’s words: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I, like so many Americans today, look upon our Congress as the most dysfunctional body imaginable. The present Congress in its dysfunctionality is not, in my opinion the worst ever. That honor, if you will, belongs to the various Congresses which presided during our Civil War of 1861 to 1865. Both major parties where so horribly splintered it is amazing they ever agreed upon anything. It was only a few years earlier, 1856, when Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the senate floor, literally with his cane, beating him so badly he required medical attention. Brooks was ostensibly defending the honor of Sen. Andrew Butler whom Sumner had earlier called an “imbecile.” For his actions Brooks was fined $300.

It is of note that members of Congress in the 19th century were seldom millionaires although most were from well-to-do families. They were elected because they espoused the desires of their constituency and, as in the case of Brooks, were willing to literally fight for those desires. Brooks was incensed over the personal verbal attack abolitionist Sumner made on Butler by saying, “Senator Butler has chosen a mistress. I mean the harlot, slavery.”  These men were obviously and heatedly devoted to those causes important to their state.  Sadly, I do not believe such can be said for any member of Congress today.

Every American has 3 representatives in Congress, two senators and a representative.  But if someone were to ask me what any of those three people has done for my state, Massachusetts, lately, I quite honestly could not say a thing.  I simply do not know even though I do my best to remain informed.

At its inception the United States could easily have broken apart into 13 separate countries.  After all, each state had long before adopted its own constitution, set up its own form of democratic elections, and put together a fully and independently functional state government.  But by 1783 the colonies had come to realize the value of coalescing into a single and strong central government.  Still, they were bitterly divided upon what that government would look like and how each state could maintain a reasonable level of autonomy within the structure of a federal government.  To that end they decided on an election process which provided for the possibility of a complete turnover of the federal government at 6 year intervals.

That process was designed prior to political action committees, huge and rich corporations, and even, yes, political parties.  Thomas Jefferson believed that their need only be a single party made up of the “wise and well-born.”  But Jefferson actually oversaw that exact change when he departed from the Federalist party line, with which he greatly disagreed, and stated the Democratic Republicans.  He realized that Virginia’s needs were frequently at odds with those of Massachusetts or New York.  The original fight over state autonomy versus federal regulation continued until 1868 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment which, in part, bars states from enacting laws contrary to federal law.  At that time states fought jealously to preserve the general good and well-being of the residents of their state.  They did this through those elected to Congress.

At the beginning of the 20th Century politicians who were called “Populists” saw well-moneyed interests exerting control of the US Government to the detriment of the individual citizen.  Industrialists like Vanderbilt had lobbied and secured eminent domain so they could gain control of otherwise privately owned property.  Rockefeller who was able to gain monopolistic control of the fledgling oil industry, Carnegie the same in the steel industry and other “tycoons” of the day.  Congress enacted anti-trust laws, monopoly laws and in 1934 the Securities and Exchange Commission.  It took well over 30 years but Congress properly recognized that corporate America had systematically diluted the power of the individual American for its own use.

From 1900 until 1980 Congress and the President did an excellent job of insuring that the rights of the individual American were not trampled on by a few powerful interests.  But when Ronald Reagan became President the executive and legislative elements of our government began undoing all the work of the previous 80 years.  Reagan used sleight of hand by breaking up the communications monopoly AT&T had created while his real agenda was something entirely different.  Reagan started the charge against the average working man when he successfully oversaw busting the air traffic controllers union.  It was an entirely unnecessary action as the power of the president has always allowed for his ending a strike when he believed the national interest and the national defense were at issue.  Previous presidents had used this power to end lengthy coal miners’ strikes for example.  But none ever considered breaking up a union as this would have been viewed as un-American.  He effectively declared open season on America’s unions even though the power of all unions was lessening and the frequency of strikes decreasing.

He then took aim at the federal regulatory process, in particular financial interests.  He declared that such institutions were too heavily regulated and unnecessarily regulated, that they were self-regulating by their very nature and in their own interest.  This gives rise to the question of why the stock market crash on 1987 happened.  Is it possible that the sudden deregulation had gone contrary to the public good?  Congress ostensibly righted that ship by putting in place laws which would limit or stop stock trading should the market give signs of being in a free-fall.  But the deregulation continued.

Since 1980 control of the Congress has switched between the Republicans and Democrats many times.  But they have increasingly shown an inability to come to a consensus of compelling domestic and foreign issues, not the least of which is the regulation of the giant conglomerates existing in the United States today.  While America’s infrastructure deteriorates at an alarming speed, Congress is having a food fight over taxes, entitlements, and defense.

No state and nor individual, conservative or liberal, is benefiting from the actions of today’s Congress.  If individual members of Congress were truly interested in the welfare of their constituents, they would be figuring out how many multiple trillions of dollars it will take to bring our infrastructure back to where it should be rather than allowing it to continue where it where it is.  Such an investment would of course greatly benefit corporate America but unfortunately they are totally devoted to their own selfish interests.  Every year corporate America spends literally billions of dollars lobbing Congress to do their bidding while trampling on the rights of private Americans.  For example, the energy industry has long touted how “clean” burning natural gas is while failing to reveal that in reality from its mining to its burning natural gas actually hurts the environment more than coal!  But who has more money to spend on lobbying, environmentalists or the energy industry?  The energy industry has done such a great job of championing their cause that they have been able to get local environmentalists to do their bidding, vis-à-vis closing coal burning electric generating plants.  It would be fine if they actually maintained the 3% pollution rate they claim rather than the 16% reality.

Starting around 2006 and continuing for the next 5 years the foreclosure rate in American sky-rocked mostly because of a mostly unregulated banking industry which allowed sub-prime loans to people who had little idea of the agreement they had entered into.  Worse, these very same large financial institutions were making bets on the success or failure of marginal investments.  It came to light that these institutions were cooking the books, so to speak, to justify what they did.  First came Enron, then Morgan Stanley, then Shearson, and so on.  A few failed but most were propped up thanks to the federal government, “too big to fail” was the war cry.  Why did it happen?  Deficient regulation and oversight.

Sadly, while all this was happening, Congress was kowtowing to the moneyed interests which got them elected while to some extent, if not completely, ignoring the welfare of the individual American.  Democrats and Republicans had obfuscated their duty to the individual American rather than anger the PACs which got them elected.

At this point I should come up with a solution.  Sadly, I do not have one short of saying America needs to toss out everyone who now populate Congress and put in new people.  That is not going to happen but something akin to it needs to happen.  Today’s members seem to feed on being antagonism and lack either the will or ability to come to any sort of an understanding with their adversary, they seem to believe that maintaining an adversarial relationship is the recipe for political success.  They use that very negative adversarial and contentious mood to invigorate those who voted them into office.  They sell it as acting in their constituents’ best interest when nothing could be further from the truth.  Members of Congress keep their attention focused on the next election and how they will get re-elected while subordinating the needs of those they represent.  Congress has become adept at selling Americans a ticket to hell and having those same Americans out beating the bushes for directions.

I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren, it seems very bleak right now.  I fear the America my ancestors fought and died for has been purchased by corporate America and that future governance is being decided in America’s boardrooms rather than America’s living rooms.  America is in desperate need of a revolution, a revolution that will empower them and put them back in control of their future.

by

The Sucessful Relationship


A young friend of mine told me this morning that his fiancé moved in with him last week and that they are getting married in two weeks. They have been together for some time now so there in nothing rushed in what is happening. But he could not wonder what the future holds for him. His most basic question, one that many people struggle with, is “why me?” He wonders why she wants to spend a life with him. I told him it is because she really likes what she sees and that he gives her everything she wants. Now I have to admit that I speculated a bit on that point because I have never met his fiancé. But Adam is a really good guy and I believe my assumption to be a safe one.

He then asked me how long I have been with my wife. I embarrassingly had to stop and think about that for a second and decided that telling him how long we had been together was even more important.

My back story is one of too many failed relationships prior to the one I am in now. There are many reasons for those failed relationships and good deal, probably 90% or greater, are the result of my decision making. That decision making is more than just who I chose, but how I acted, what I said, what I did and a plethora of other things during those relationships. My failed relationships spanned from a few days to many years but finally I got my head out of my ass and took note of what I had done wrong. The things I had done wrong can be boiled down to a few basic truths: dishonesty, disloyalty, fear, doubt, and insecurity. And I can wrap all those things up by saying, I just did not know how to talk or to relate to people, not just women, but everyone.

I told Adam that probably the most important thing in a relationship has to be honesty. And that honesty has to start well before the marriage. This is where fear always crept into my psyche. I feared that if I was totally honest about what was going around in my head then certainly the woman I was with would go running for the hills. What I failed to do was consider that that might have been the relationship saver rather than killer.  The other relationship killer, absolutely, is resentment.  Resentment is the poison you drink while you wait for the other person to become ill.  But in truth resentment is simply the surfacing of our own shortcomings that we either deny or are unwilling to overcome.

I think we human beings have a natural amount of insecurity which shows up in our lives in a variety of ways. I feel badly for women because they are bombarded with the commercial world’s definition of beauty. They compare themselves to the reigning queens of beauty in music, on the silver screen and in the advertisements of the magazines they read. I can tell you from personal experience that I have known any number of women who were truly gorgeous on the outside and either hollow or some other negative characteristic to the core. Then I know a lot of people who are absolutely gorgeous. Most will never turn a head but what springs forth from them is a beautiful heart. True beauty is an inside job. Now this is not to say that physical attraction should not play a role in a good relationship, it does of course! But that can only be the start of things. There is a natural progression from that point that must happen.

I stated in an earlier post that you should marry your best friend. That is, this is the person you talk to freely and easily. The only time you edit your speech is to be politic about what you are saying without sacrificing honesty. Honesty is the bedrock of all good relationships. Partners who have been together a long time not only know their mate’s good qualities but also their shortcomings. All human beings develop a host of shortcomings. Those who desire to better themselves reduce or remove those shortcomings as much as possible. I like to use the common shortcoming of jealousy. I call it one of the two most useless feelings any person can have, the other be resentment. But I chose jealousy here because I firmly believe it can be entirely defeated. That is because I believe jealousy is a measurement of an individual’s insecurity. The secure man takes pride in other men admiring the woman he is with. In fact, if he could, he would invite it. He also does not worry that his wife is out with friends some of whom may be male. This is also the trust aspect of good relationships, you trust your mate no matter what.

I suggested to Adam that, if he had not already done so, he talk to his fiancé about his fears and his insecurities. I explained that everyone has them and anyone who claims they do not is a liar. Not only does your mate need to know such things so (s)he knows what is going on with you, but has the right to know such things. I think it an obligatory part of successful relationships.

To this Adam said he had always seen himself a “the rock” in the relationship. I asked him why since, as I explained, a rock never moves forward. I suggested he look at the relationship as mutually supportive as you move through life so that when one or the other has a weak moment you have all the support you need in your mate. They instinctively understand and are ready. They have you by your arm ready to hold you up when you stumble, which you will!

Society today in general seems to have a lot of trouble listening. When someone is explaining something to you not only is it polite to quietly listen until they are done, it is crucial to understanding one another. Some people just cannot seem to help themselves and interrupt the other person by talking over them before they are done. This has the effect of turning a nice discussion into a confrontational one. It is always best to hear the person out, take breath, literally, and then in considered terms, respond to what they have said. At the very least this shows respect for what has been said. That is particularly good when you find yourself in the position of having to disagree with what has been said. What is at work here is respectful consideration. People like to think what they say is of value but when they are interrupted it says just the opposite and who wants to be disrespected? In a marriage as soon as one party starts thinking the other does not respect them, it does not bode well for the future. It is then that questions of commitment and love also come into question.

I think it wise to take, at the very least, a mental snapshot of the person you are marrying or otherwise entering into a long term committed relationship. Remember the reasons that got you there, why you found that person so attractive. Those things you find attractive will not change much except in a positive direction. A good heart is always a good heart, it does not change. A kind, caring, considerate, deeply committed and honest person also does not change and those are the qualities that take you through the years. Outer beauty fades, sex drive fades, and energy level fades among other things. But that is to be expected and that happens the successful relationship realizes that just being with that other person makes their day. Their love is shown in a thousand other ways and even though they feel extremely comfortable in the relationship, they have also committed themselves to always working on it. But when everything and everyone else seems to fail us, we can count on our loved one because we know for certain they are always there for us.

by

Navigating Relationships in Your 20s


As human beings we are social creatures by design.  We are not meant to be alone and certainly not meant to live alone.  Somewhere around the age of 12 we all experience the desire to be with a special someone.  Unfortunately, schools do not teach us about friendships and relationships.  We learn by watching what other people do, what our parents do, and, unfortunately, what we see on television and the internet.  The last two, of course, are absolutely the worst places.  Still, we all seem to get into relationships that are doomed from the start.  Women, unfortunately, settle for “Mr. Right Now” instead of waiting for “Mr. Right.”  Men look for someone to take care of them, someone to replace mom.  We men will never admit to that but it is true.

Life is all about priorities and choices.  Young people, myself included when I was young, I am 66 now, seldom prioritize anything and are prone to bad choices.  Also, life is messy, just accept that truth and do not worry about it.  As much as you might think you do, you definitely do not know what someone else is thinking about you, never assume.

I recommend that all young people stay in school as long as possible.  Getting well-educated for young people must be priority number 2.  That assumes that priority number 1 is taking care of yourself and whatever that means.

It is not just young people who find the concept to self-care illusive, it is older adults as well.   I believe the most basic element to solving absolutely any problem we have or will have is that we keep a very sharp focus on taking care of ourselves.  Those basic things include eating healthy, annual visits to our primary care physician and dentist, regular exercise, and even something as basic as dressing ourselves.  The old cliché’ of dress for success is true.

That done we need to have a plan for our future.  This is also a self-care issue.  Until we finish the highest level of education possible or necessary, our education has to be priority number 2.  Few people at age 18 know what career they want to pursue.  Even some of those who think they do really do not.  What I recommend is that high school seniors who are undecided do one of three things: 1) take a year or two off from school and enter the work force while you discover yourself, 2) join the military, 3) when you enroll in the college of yourself do not decide upon a major, go as “undeclared.”  During the first one or two years in college there are more than enough courses all college students must take to qualify for a degree.  Those courses almost always are enough to fill a freshmen year and at least in part a sophomore year.  And during that first and second year discover what truly thrills you.  Discover what your dream career is and then ask questions of college advisors what it takes to achieve the highest level in that career.  With a few exceptions, physicians, lawyers, nurses, and some others, your course of action will probably not be obvious.  But regardless of what college you attend, there is someone there who can give you the advice you need going forward.

I have a B.S. in computer science and a masters in U.S. History.  The latter degree came from an extremely good university and I pursued that degree because I really like U.S. history.  But had I had my senses about me after I finished my time in the army, I was 21 at the time, I would have pursued a career in astro-physics.  At the time I would have complained that I sucked at math.  But the truth was simple, I did not know how to study and overcome obstacles.  Math would have been tough but manageable had I had a plan.  When I retired at age 58 I was sprinting away from a 30 year career because I simply could not stand going to work anymore.  I made a lot of bad choices and did not have the courage to pursue my dreams.

Between the ages of 18 and 25 young people are usually absolutely obsessed with being with that special person.  And unfortunately this obsessions becomes priority number 1 in their life.  In my priority list here it does not belong even in 3rd place, still too high.  But relationships in general do belong in place number 3.  One of the craziest ideas people have is that they should never date a friend for fear of ruining a friendship.  I believe people who think that way have only a tenuous hold on what makes a good relationship.

Our most important relationships necessarily are with our family of birth.  Our parents and siblings are our first relationships and given all the years such relationships exist, should be our best.  Too many times, however, that is not true.  Sometimes it is for good reason but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.  Young people, myself included at the time, think our parents do not understand us.  It is a ridiculous thought but prevalent.  What we all need to do is put forth whatever effort is required to understand our parents, where they came from and from that why they are who they are now.  There is no substitute for understanding.  Within the family unit one of the most common negative emotions felt is resentment.  Resentment, along with jealousy, is one of the most useless feelings we all have.  Resentments are founded in fear, doubt and insecurity and serve no good purpose.  When you feel a resentment ask yourself why and what happened to make you feel that way.  Then take good honest look at yourself to find the role you played in developing that resentment.  That done, let it go, get over it.  Resentment is the poison you drink while you wait for the other person to fall ill.

I have three daughters.  When she was in high school my eldest daughter came to me and complained that she did not have any friends, that no one liked her.  I knew that could not be true and asked her if she had one good friend.  She responded that she did.  I told her that she already had all the friends she needed and to not worry about anyone else.  She later told me how good that advice was when she suggested to her younger sister that she come to me about friendship advice.  It is my belief that people should practice being a friend and how to have friends prior to moving on to something more serious.  That is not to say you should not date, you should.  Just refuse to commit to anyone before you are ready and certainly not before you have the friendship concept down cold.

It is at this point people oft times find themselves interested in a good friend for a more serious and intimate relationship.  If you still feel you cannot be intimate with that person for fear of ruining a good friendship then I suggest you still do not have the friendship concept down.  Why would you want to be in an intimate relationship with anyone who would not also qualify as a best friend?

Try to avoid getting married before you are 25.  Considering 50% of all marriages fail, why not wait it out as long as possible?  I am not saying you cannot find that right person prior to 25 you can.  But when you think you have that right person in your life make sure you ask and answer the tough questions.  You want someone who is secure, devoted, monogamous, honest and who, when you are not engaged in sex or having a conversation with, you can sit quietly with and enjoy their company fully.  This is also the person who, when you are about to do something dumb, will lovingly suggest you consider your options.  This is the person who is not jealous, always courteous, thoughtful, and loves you when you are at your worst.  This is the non-judgmental person with whom you share your greatest fears and who knows all your shortcomings and loves you all the same.  But even my short list here suggests that you must be willing to invest a serious amount of time in the relationship prior to agreeing to marriage.

The long and short of all this is simple, make sure you can exist happily on your own before you make a commitment to be with anyone else.  Sometimes even with our best efforts relationships fail.  And when they do, do not be that person who has to scramble to find a place to live, to feed yourself and otherwise take care of yourself.  Do not be the person who will have difficulty in making ends meet.  Do not be the person who thinks because the relationship failed you are a failure too or that you are unlovable.  And definitely do not be the person who, on the heels of that failed relationship, quickly jumps into another because you feel desperate, lonely or anything else that puts you in a negative light.  Without being annoying or narcisstic about it, always consider yourself a catch and that whoever might want to be with you should be lucky to have you.

by

July 4, 1776: What Day One Looked Like


On April 17, 1775 a bunch of colonists from the Massachusetts Colony took exception, not the first time either, to the idea that the British Army had the right to seize guns and powder the colonists stored for future use.  On September 1, 1774 Gen. Gage sent troops to Somerville to confiscate guns and powder stored there.  Colonists heard of their intentions and secreted away their arms.  On December 14, 1774 Gen. Gage did the same at Portsmouth NH with the same results. The stage was actually set on February 26, 1775 when similar orders were given by Gage to collect ammunitions stored at Salem.  This time, however, Gage’s soldiers were met head-on by colonists.  The colonists offered just enough resistance by denying the British soldiers access to a draw-bridge across the river they faced that the commander of the British troops deemed it too late in the day for him to be effective and therefore withdrew back to Boston.

Those expeditions by the British troops were undertaken with relatively small detachments of men, 100 to 200 men.  But on April 18, 1775, American spies in Boston got word of a large movement of troops which were to be sent to Concord.  The seriousness of the situation was not lost on the colonist hence the actions of Paul Revere and his accomplices.  We all know that the spy in Boston signaled to Revere that the troops would travel via sea, which was actually little more than boarding ships in Boston Harbor and debarking on the shores of the Charles River.  Those troops numbered 500.  What they had not accounted for was the dispatching of an additional 400 troops attached the British artillery who would travel via land.  In those days Boston sat on a peninsula as shown below.  The land route meant going south over the “neck” of Boston to what is Dorchester today and then via Watertown westward to Concord.  Those 900 regulars outnumbered the entire population of Lexington and Concord by 2 to 3 times.  As John Hancock sat in a tavern in Lexington near to where the first skirmish took place he was fully aware that from that day forward he and his allies would be branded as traitors to the crown and subject to death if captured.  It was truly a very fearful time for these rebels.

boston - concord 1775

In September of that year the First Continental Congress was assembled in Philadelphia to discuss their situation and what to do about it.  Washington begged for financial support that he desperately needed to keep his troops not just fed and clothed, by loyal to the cause.  Unpaid soldiers were prone to desertion, something that plagued Washington throughout the Revolution.  Representatives from each of the colonies argued over how many troops they should send and how much financial support the should and could give.  Unfortunately little was accomplished.  Massachusetts, under John Adams, supplied the lion’s share of troops and supplies to the cause, something which did not sit well with Adams since being passed over for the job of General of the Army which he had coveted at the outbreak of hostilities.

But sometimes lost in this is one other document which affected all Americans at that time, “Common Sense.”  This was a pamphlet, written by Thomas Paine, an English expatriate, who set out in print how hostilities between the King and the colonists came to fruition and why such actions had to be taken by the colonists.  The pamphlet sold in excess of 120,000 copies during the first three months of 1776.  It helped set the tone for the yet to be written declaration.

In 1776 the Revolution was not going well for the Americans.  Some viewed it as a civil war over opposing ideas where one side would win and the government as they had known it would continue in some similar fashion when hostilities ended depending up who prevailed.  But from the very beginning, both the Massachusetts and Virginia colonial leadership knew full well that a return to life as it was would be impossible.  Thomas Jefferson had started writing treatises to that effect in 1774 and when he appeared as a congressional delegate in 1775 he was a natural to write a declaration of independence.  On June 11, 1776 a “Committee of Five,” as it was known, was selected to write the declaration.  Its members were Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Roger Livingstone of New York, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, John Adams of Massachusetts.  Jefferson wrote the majority of the document and presented it to the “Committee of the Whole,” Congress, on June 28. The famous picture below depicts this.

1280px-Declaration_independence

A debate ensued on how to adopt it which was settled on July 1.  Franklin insisted on a couple of changes which were granted and the signing began.  John Hancock was the first to sign.  His signature is by far the largest as well.  When queried as to why he had done this he responded that he wanted to insure that the King could see it.  At the end there were 56 signers, that was July 3.

On July 4 the Committee of Five, after rendering the document fit for printing, delivered it to John Dunlap, the broadside printer.  It was officially presented to the public on July 5 and sent via courier to King George III.  Fifty-six men had sealed their fate: lose the war and lose their lives in the process.

Prior to April 19, 1775, the inhabitants of the 13 colonies all considered themselves loyal subjects of the King.  They were Englishmen first and Americans second.  They had enjoyed great prosperity under English rule so their taking up arms against their own government in England was not taken on lightly but with great trepidation.  To wit, during that first year there was much discussion over who was a “patriot” and who was a “tory.”  Who could be trusted and who could not was discussed at great length and the matter was not settled until March 17, 1776 when the siege of Boston ended and British troops and loyalist left on an armada of ships for Nova Scotia.  Among them were here-to-fore respected and admired colonists of position and rank, judges, doctors and even one general in the militia.  There was even one colonial governor and son of a signer of the Declaration of Independence, William Franklin, governor of New Jersey and son of Benjamin Franklin.  The two never spoke again.

Upon reading the Declaration you find the beginnings of our Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights.  This document not only set forth the grievances of the colonists to its former government, but a delineation of the direction they would be taking. It is sobering to consider that up to that point the new American army had won just one battle, that being Lexington and Concord.  Only two month after Lexington and Concord the colonists suffered a withering defeat at Bunker Hill.  Later, Gen. Washington suffered numerous defeats on Long Island and then New York City before retreating to the woods of Pennsylvania.  Only July 4, 1776 there was little reason for optimism even with the newly presented Declaration of Independence.  It was an extremely fearful time for all involved and still they had declared themselves “all in.”  On July 4th 1776 there was good reason to believe the colonists would not be successful and little reason to be on victory save that of their absolute dedication to the cause.  And in the end, that is exactly what won the day.

by

Brady Innocent, NFL Guilty!


I have done a fair amount of research during my life, one paper being published in a scientific journal (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2003-379).  In writing that report room for error was tight, that is, a reasonable person reading the report and have knowledge of the conditions discussed, would agree with my/our findings.  Ted Wells is an attorney who is well versed in evidence.  The phrase “a preponderance of evidence” is key in any courtroom as an offer of proof.  But what does he say in his report?  “More likely than not.”  Can you imagine him saying that in a courtroom?  He would be laughed out!  His “evidence” would be dismissed, absolutely!  At 51% you reach the “more likely” category but what meaning does that hold.  I suspect he was thinking along the lines of 60% likelihood but even so, that cannot by any standard be taken as guilt.

The bottom line here is, if you cannot prove something “beyond a reasonable doubt,” something else Wells is very familiar with, you have nothing!

But I hold Goodell more to blame for all this than anyone else.  I wrote immediately following this incident that Goodell’s move was to inform the Patriots of what he had been told and said to them, “we will be checking and you better no be doing anything!”  Had he done that, and the balls found underinflated still, then he would really have had something.  Now he has bupkis!  Nada!  Nothing!

Now everyone is discussing what punishment needs to be levied.  They point to Gordon, Hardy, and Rice and say how they were severely fined.  True, but in each case there was incontrovertible proof of their wrong doing.  Here they only have the suggestion of proof and nothing more.  To fine Brady anything at all would be wrong in every sense of the word.  The NFL’s best course is to fine the organization, a large fine to quell the critics, and move on.

If they do punish Brady I cannot imagine anything more than a fine.  The first game of the season is prime-time Pittsburgh versus New England with Ben Rothlisburger going up against……..Jimmy Garropolo?  I don’t think so!

What this report shows more than anything how poorly the NFL conducts its business.  Had the inflation level of the footballs been as important prior to that fateful game, there would have been a foolproof system of tracking the balls and insuring the integrity of the game, but there were not and are not.  This is just another case of the NFL, and Goodell in particular, remaining reactive and not proactive as would be the intelligent way to do business.

by

Sober Thoughts and Sober Thinking


Once again I have used my hand dandy Webster’s to look up a word which in this case is the word “sober.”  Now everyone knows meaning number 1, not drunk.  What about the other meanings?  Here’s one: 3. “Straightforward: serious 4. Plain or subdued, ie sober attire for church. 5. Devoid of frivolity, exaggeration, or speculative imagination <gave a sober assessment of the problem> 6. self-controlled and sane:  reasonable.  I would like to add the idea of a “sobering experience.”  Or, Level heads and sober minds came to a well-reasoned conclusion.

If you are thinking this sounds strangely like something you might here in an A.A. meeting, you are quite correct!  You might indeed but don’t let the fact that I have attended such meetings for the past 16 plus years color your thinking.  Or maybe it should.

I look around me today, particularly which I am forced to consider things of a political nature, or worse, drive on one of our interstate highways.  All around me I see thousands of people who are in desperate need of a 12 step meeting and most are not even alcoholics!  Yes, I am suggesting that the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous need to be exclusive to alcoholics.  Indeed, to just such an end, Overeaters Anonymous uses the “Big Book” of A.A. and its 12 steps as the basis of their program, and it works!

Step 1 — My life is a mess /nuts and I seem to have lost control of my own little universe.

Step 2 — I have decided that since this all this stuff seems too much for any one person, I am going to pray to God for help.

Step 3 – Having identified those things over which I seem to have no control, I’m calling in help, additionally, I am letting go of any idea that I either can figure it all out by myself or that I can do it alone, I CAN’T!  So I’m passing some stuff off to God.

4.  All these resentments I have a wearing me out.  I am going to figure out why I have them and how to get rid of them, permanently.

5.  I can’t do step 4 alone so I am going to enlist a trusted friend to hear my problems and assist me in removing them.

6.  I need to make a list of my short comings, and a plan to rid myself of them.

7.  Well, once again I cannot do the previous step alone so I enlist assistance.

8.  Time to consider all those people I have wrong over the years, institutions too.  And yet again I enlist the trusted advisor to objectively look at my list and edit it.

9.  I make amends!

10.  I have decided that what I have gained thus far is considerable so at this point I will take a daily personal inventory to insure my commitment to continually doing the next right thing.

11.  I have found a little prayer and a lot of thought and mediation keep me in touch both with myself and that which I see as a higher power.

12.  Now I get to show the rest of the world, through my actions, that I have improved myself but I must insure the message is honest and available to them if the desire it.

See there, no mention of alcohol and yet makes all the same points at AA’s 12 steps.  That definition I put all the way back at the top comes back into play here, as does the title.  People who have discovered the advantages of a spiritual life manage sober thoughts and sober thinking without much effort.  They have practiced it for so long that it has become second nature to them.

I think 90% of all American adults, if not more, could benefit from using the 12 Steps of AA.  A strange things to people who practice them religiously, they change.  And that change is both dramatic and wonderful.  They grow up, become responsible, are reliable, good husbands, wives, and children as well as employees.  They understand implicitly that denial is the first step towards failure.

Right now I would love to give the entire American Congress a 12 step program but I fear that cannot be as totally honest such a program requires.

You do not have to be an alcoholic to go to an AA meeting.  I guarantee if you do go, you will absolutely get something out of it.  Consider this:  there is absolutely no down side to never taking another drink; and there is no up side to taking a drink.

by

On Easter Sunday, I Give You the Real Jesus


Today is Easter Sunday which for Christians is the most holy day of the year.  But have you ever asked yourself what the word Easter means?  There is no apparent connection to Christian belief.  I had no clue either until a few moments ago when I looked it up in my handy dandy Webster’s.  It says: “word history:  The word Easter . . . had its origins in pagan times.  Eastre or Eostre the Old Germanic English spelling of Easter, was originally the name of a Germanic goddess who was worshiped at a festival at the spring equinox.  Her name is closely related to Latin aurora and Greek eos, both of which mean “dawn.”  Easter is also derived from the same root word as east, the direction of the sunrise.  The Easter Bunny is another story entirely and for another time.

Theologian scholars have provided us with a plethora of information of where modern Christianity formed its holy days.  Christmas is a fabulous example of this as those same scholars seem to universally agree that Jesus was born in the spring and not when we celebrate his birth.  Early Christians, the early Roman Church in particular, were wont to end what they saw as pagan practices, in this case the pagan holiday of Saturnalia.  I make mention of these two well-accepted facts as evidence the early Christian church was extremely interested in co-opting paganism, and thereby killing it off, than historical accuracy.

Conservative Christians of today have the unnerving tendency to use the Bible as their sole source for information about the ancients.  But the truth is, there exists far more than those texts.  For example, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls which refer to daily life and customs at the time of Jesus.  Even though they were discovered in 1946, a complete and accurate description and final translation of them in far from finished.  Still, they provide us with a very different view from that of the New Testament.

And this brings me to the time of Jesus.  Was Jesus the son of God, something He never actually says himself but infers heavily, an angel of God, which would be very much in keeping with ancient Hebrew beliefs, or simply a great prophet?  Maybe He was all three.  But what we know of Jesus seems to fall far short of what we would like to know.  For example, he is born, secreted to Egypt for fear of his life, disappears entirely for 12 years at which time he shows up at a Temple and declared a rabbi.  Then he disappears again entirely for another 18 years for which we know nothing.  And even those final three years of his life the “facts” given are quite thin and many beg for clarification.

As a degreed historian, I can say with authority that such books as the Gospels are to be placed in the category of folk lore.  And this is not to say that folk lore in either unreliable or untrue, but as folk lore exists, it must be, in this case, assigned to stories of faith.  The veracity of such stories must be questioned.  But as with anything of the sort, there is likely truth to them as well.

Many books have been written about the “Historical Jesus.”  I have seen a few and as books go they vary in veracity.  That is, the ability of the author to keep his personal views and his prejudices apart from his writings is not always complete.  Even so, they are attempts to find the real face of Jesus.  In this respect I will add my own perspective which I can guarantee you are entirely prejudiced by my own views and are only my own view of this great and historic man.

One final thing; we also know for certain that the Gospels of the New Testament date back, at best, to 60 years after the death of Jesus.  They are also written in Greek, not the native tongue of Jesus which was Aramaic.  This means, just on the face of it, that a translation was made from one language to the other. And regardless of whether it was translated from one written language to the other or, worse, one verbal retelling to the other,  translations from disparate languages speak to the astuteness of the translator to understand what he is translating.  Historically, societies kept people who were customs keeper, story tellers, to insure a record of their being and beliefs was passed forward.  Such existed even to the early parts of the American experience in the 17th and 18th century.  The most valuable, and recognized as likely to be correct, is the first hand eye witness account of events.  But these stories were usually, and at best, second hand.  With regard to the life of Jesus, those original stories are second hand at best.  But people of faith with tell you, rightfully so, that his was a mission of faith and thus the stories of his life must be viewed in the same light.

I find it curious in the presentation of the Gospels the claim that Jesus said he had not come to change the law, the ancient Mosaic Law is what he was referring to.  But soon after when He is questioned as to the “eye for an eye” taken of the Old Testament, he responds with “turn the other cheek.”  It seems to me that is a direct contradiction and changing of the law.  I think the New Testament is replete with inconsistencies in logic, sometime from one verse to the next.  There exist too many mixed messages and incomplete thoughts.  Did Jesus actually expand upon such thoughts at much greater length?  I think it reasonable to say that He most certainly did, and probably many times over.  But such lengthy, and probably more enlightening thoughts, are lost to the ages because they were not transcribed as they were being pronounced.

Jesus was by all accounts a radical of His day.  He struck fear into the established religious leaders of the day.  Why?  He was, contrary to what the Gospels claim, turning old Jewish law on its head and providing His followers with a completely new way of looking at things.  He advocated peace.   He was the first historical figure to suggest the separation of church and state when he said to give to Rome which is Rome’s and to God which is God’s.  He advocated for the poor suggesting in his story of the good Samaritan, that those of means give half of what they own to the poor.  He very pointedly stated that man was by his very nature a sinner and that time best spent was that in bettering himself rather than pointing out the shortcomings of another.  And to that point, Jesus never once condemn anyone to hell, as modern evangelists like to do.  For that matter, he never mentioned the place which would have been in keeping with Jewish tradition which had, and still has, no heaver nor hell.

His actions suggest that He actively sought to modify ancient traditions.  Baptism, as He underwent with John, was nothing new.  It was the symbolic cleansing of the spirit.  It also was not done with children but with adults who were ready to admit their sins and ask to be cleansed.  But if Jesus were God it is impossible that He had sinned so why do it?  Quite simply because he understood extremely well the role of the leader.  He knew that charisma, which He had in spades, was the manna which fed the souls of those who chose to follow His teachings.  I think it entirely possible that Jesus was proposing the ideal of spiritual health over religious dogma.  He did, after all, seek out the dregs of his society and only asked of them that he believe in His teachings.  Not once is he heard to say that a man must attend the temple and must contribute monies to keep His church healthy.  Why do you suppose that was?  Is it possible He believed a church was truly inside a man and not within four walls?

In the time of Jesus, and for most of the centuries which have followed, women were second class citizens relegated to the rear of the temple and denied any say what-so-ever in its conduct.  Unfortunately too much of that exists today.  And so enters the most misunderstood character of the New Testament, Mary Magdalen.  The early Christian Church had absolutely no idea of how to handle her existence in the presence of their messiah but she was mentioned in the Bible so they also could not ignore her.  Certainly, they thought, Jesus looked upon this woman as they did, a woman of low moral character who only came to beg for forgiveness and her penance was to wash His feet with her hair.  The problem with such a telling is that it bears no relationship to the truth.  That truth is theologians have never found a woman of that name or conduct.  But they have found a similar woman, or possibly several women, who can account for that personage.  Likely Mary was a woman of means who had been moved by Jesus’ ministry.  Maybe she was a woman from Samaria, people seen as only slightly better than the brutal Romans and equally hated.  But for her to seek audience with a rabbi, a man of such stature and position was unthinkable at that time and for many centuries to follow.  But Jesus, being who He was, denied no one for any reason.  And I suggest, and I think it likely, she, along with several other women, became one of His Apostles.  Remember, at the end of His crucifixion it was only the women who saw to His removal from the cross, transportation, preparation, and final burial in the tomb.  No man, certainly no apostle, was anywhere to be found.  You ask, if they were truly Apostles why not mention it?  Simple, it was an “inconvenient truth.”

A rather famous atheist, Dr. Isaac Azimov, most well-known for his science fiction writings, but also a professor of bio-chemistry at Boston University, made an interesting observation about the writing of the New Testament.  He noted that the Aramaic language in the day of Jesus had around 5000 words.  Today’s English language, in contrast, has over one million.  He observes that the Aramaic word for virgin is identical for the word for young girl.  Does this suggest the early Christian Church’s aversion to the discussion of sex?  I think it extremely likely.  How would the historical figure of Mary as something other than a virgin square with the telling of the birth of Jesus?  It would have necessarily meant that Mary had engaged in sex with Joseph.  I think it likely the church desired nothing less than something which could be passed off as miraculous.  And a virgin birth suited their interest.  They also do not mention Mary’s age, which could have been as young as 12 and Joseph as a man who could have been well into his 50s.  Not unusual in those days.

But back to Jesus.  To the established high ranking Jews of the day, Jesus appeared a threat to their power.  We know for fact that Rome had absolutely no interest in the crucifixion of Jesus, to the contrary.  The ministry of Jesus had suggested radical changes to long standing beliefs of the Jews but never once challenged the power of Rome.  And the ultra-conservative Jews of the day simply could not stand for that.  I am suggesting that this ancient Jesus was in fact seen as some sort of liberal reformist who was bringing needed change to old conservatism, a conservatism which was contrary to the best interest of the Jewish masses.  But that would have meant the illuminati of the Jewish religion would have had to accept changes.  That is something to this day conservatives find difficult if not impossible.

When Jesus died his Apostles and other disciples were at a loss for what to call themselves and they saw themselves, justifiably or not, as out-casts of accepted Jewish society.  For a long time afterwards they simply referred to their religion as “the way.”  The idea of calling themselves Christians had not yet formulated.  Those early follower quickly moved away from Israel, a place they knew they would be persona non grata, first to Turkey and then to Greece and finally Rome.  But it is also likely that these early leaders of the church were illiterate.  The only formal education of the day existed strictly for the rich and those who devoted themselves to become Rabbis.  Scribes were probably the only exception that, they being drafted into such a career by the ruling class.  The Apostles could neither read nor write but such was not a part of their mission.  None had come from background of what we might see as middle class.  All are shown as being from the most humble of means.  And a few, like Peter, were shown to be fairly rough and tumble.  It is my belief that scribes were at some point enlisted to write down what had been witnessed by the Apostles, and others, as custom dictated.  But the scribed did not write the New Testament!

When eventually these people arrived in Greece, a truly enlightened and literate society, those Greeks who embraced this earliest form of Christianity, ensured the survival of the faith buy putting it into print.  But whoever they were had to immediately been confronted with the problem of the translation from Aramaic to Greek, which is where we derive our present day texts.  If in history there ever was a more meaningful time for the expression “lost in translation,” this was it!  It stands to reason that certain words either translated poorly or not at all from the original Aramaic to Greek.  I can almost hear the conversation of the person from Israel trying to explain the concept, the word, he is expressing to his Greek counterpart, and finally the two agreeing upon a word the more or less expresses the thought.  There is no way to know how much of that happened but it is a certainty that it did.  And furthermore, what if one Gospel, say that of Matthew, had very differing views of events from that of Luke or John?  How would they deal with that.  Could it be that they simple chose the one which showed Jesus in the most favorable light?  Or could it be that they allowed their own prejudices in and chose the one which most suited them.  We will never know but it can help explain how four men who supposedly witness the life of Jesus gave differing versions.  If I were a man on that day and was sitting down to lunch with Jesus, at some point I would certainly ask what he did before he started his ministry.  Such a story would be immensely fascinating.  Was such a story told but the early authors could not see the value of including such references?

But does this also explain the large gaps which exist from one Gospel to the next.  This birth of Jesus is related at length in only one, so why not the others?  Were they simply edited out?  Did one story contradict the other leaving the Greek and Aramaic writers left to choose one telling of the other?  The same thing happens at the death of Jesus.  Also, were there records of Jesus’ ministry that were viewed as uncomplimentary which were left out for that reason?  Remember, Jesus did have a fit of violence when he threw the money men from the temple. Which bring about the question as to why that is the only story from his birth to age 30? Also, did Jesus’ retreat to the desert for reflection really last for 40 days or was that a number of convenience because it squared with other 40 days incidents of the Old Testament, Noah in particular.  And remember, the time from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday is also 40 days.  Forty was a magical number in those days as was the number 13, the 13 generations of the house of David being one.

Modern day Christian fundamentalists have co-opted Jesus to their own selfish beliefs.  They love literal translations and have little problems chastising anyone who suggests anything different.  Today’s compelling argument for them is their anti-gay theme comes from Jesus saying that a man should not sleep with another man.  They have not considered the fact that it was common practice in those days for men who led caravans to take along with them young boys with whom they would have sex and feel they have not violated their marriage vows.  Could this have been what Jesus was speaking of and that He, being God and being fully aware of the gay people of his day, had been referring to pedophilia and not homosexuality?  I think that to be much more likely.

I absolutely believe that Jesus would have a lot of problems with those who use their religious beliefs in the conduct of their political desires, ergo his give unto Rome that which is Rome’s admonition.  I suspect the writers of our Constitution felt the same.  I also believe that Jesus would have serious problems with the top 1% of wealthy today.  He might refer such people to his saying what profit a man who gains a kingdom and loses his soul.  He might ask them if they believe that what they practice is what He taught.  And while I am certain he understood that wealth had its place, he repeatedly spoke of being generous with such wealth.  He spoke of casting the first stone, turning the other cheek, treating others as you would want to be treated, judging as you would want to be judged, and absolute kindness and understanding.

If I were a part of the conservative right in this country, I would fear His saying to me, “you have already received your reward and now you will be judge harshly just as you did the least of my brethren.”

by

Making Amends to the Universe


It is a funny thing about words you do not use in most conversations: you think you know the definition and then upon looking the word up in the dictionary you find something quite different.  I used to think that the act of making amends with someone meant apologizing.  Of course I was wrong.  Just this morning I looked the word up in my handy dandy Webster’s and this is what I found: “Amends – Reparation for insult, injury or loss.”  Did not see the phrase “to apologize” anywhere there although one can imply it from the word “reparation.”  I of course immediately looked up the word “reparation” and found this:  “Reparation – 1. The act or process of repairing or the state of being repaired.  2. The act or process of making amends: EXPIATION. 3. Something done or paid as amends: COMPENSATION.”  Since “expiation” is not in my vocabulary I had to look that one up too.  At this point I was hopeful I would not see yet another word which needed clarification.  “Expiation – 2. Means of atonement.”  I did not include definition “1” because it said “the act of expiating.”  Is that not obvious?  Regardless, the dictionary made no direct mention of the act of apologizing.  Quite to the contrary, it seems like that definition was actively avoided.

I was made aware of this process by a group of friends almost 20 years ago.  Of course my first impression was that I needed to apologize for my bad acts and be done with it.  Upon reflection, however, it seems people deserving of an apology may have difficulty in believing the maker of such, me, because recent history makes them believe that I will repeat my bad act yet again.  And I now know, they were probably correct.

But what does all this have to do with the universe?  It is actually rather simple but speaks to my religious upbringing, Roman Catholicism.  The Catholic Church that I grew up in had me constantly looking over my shoulder.  It seemed to me, via their teaching, that each day I would commit a multitude of sins that I needed to apologize for and hope that God would be forgiving.  Catholic priests in those days, much like their conservative Protestant brethren preach a whole lot of fire and brimstone.  They contended if I were not on the right side of God, which was more likely than not, I would one day be condemned to hell.  And so Catholics, at least, love to apologize for everything even though they have somewhere been little and no comprehension of their transgression and what makes it such.  For example, the nuns assured us it was a sin not to go to church on Sunday and holy days and that we needed to confess that sin to the priest.  I always wanted to say, “you mean God is pissed off at me just because I missed mass one Sunday?”  I feel certain had I gotten up the courage to ask such a question, the answer would have been a very hearty “yes.”  It just did not make any sense to me, still doesn’t.

I bring that up because as I entered adulthood and for many years afterward, I was crippled with Catholic guilt and no understanding of how to assuage it.  The nuns would have said, “just don’t do it anymore.”  No explanation, just don’t do it.  Such insufficiencies dogged me for half of my adult life.

One of the first things I learned in dealing with my transgressions and the art of making amends, yes, it is an art, was coming to an understanding of the exact process leading up to that transgression.  This was something I had never before considered, mostly because it never occurred to me but also because it had never before been suggested.  And so here is where the universe, and I mean that literally, comes into play.

Long before life came to exist on the face of the earth, at the moment of the “Big Bang” actually, the laws of the universe were set into motion.  Each and every one of those laws are absolutes, not to be broken, not to be denied, and certainly not to be contested, least of all by we humans.  The universe was set into that motion at that moment and had be moving, inexorably, in a particular direction ever since.  Scientists today are at odds with, and discuss at considerably length, what direction that motion is moving, but they agree that there is a single set of laws controlling that direction.  We humans do not understand that law yet, if ever.

Since humans have roamed the earth they have tried, many times in vain, to understand what was happening to them and why.  The ancients, in their desperate attempt, created gods who reigned over just about everything, the rising of the sun, the motion of the moon, the oceans, the rain, everything.  But in that process, they also started making excuses for negative things which happened to them by laying it off to one of their gods or to other people.  The idea of taking responsibility for your own actions seemed at odds with the teaching of the day.  Unfortunately, such teaching, though modified, have mostly passed down through the ages and exist today.  People today try to figure out why something has gone horribly wrong in their life and look outward for the answer, other people, bad luck, anything that does not require them to look inside themselves.  There are also those situations which creep into everyone’s life where the literal forces of the universe negatively impact their life.  It gets really bad when a person starts thinking it is only raining on them when common sense should win out telling them that the universe is not plotting against them, it is actually raining on everyone around them as well.

The reason for mentioning all these things in the context of amends is that humans seem ill prepared to put things in proper perspective.  We humans have this tendency to be in a reactive mode rather than a much more productive proactive mode.  I like to use the example of a 25 year old who dies from cancer.  People love to say “how unfair” it is.  The problem with the word “unfair” is that it implies some sort of reasoning behind it.  It is as if the cancer looked at that 25 year old and decided to pick on him or her.  Of course that is foolishness.  They do not think the same way when a life-long smoker gets lung cancer or emphysema, so why do so just because the cause is not evident?  They would be far better served by lay off blame, if blame really must be assigned, to the universe and its inexplicable and difficult to avoid actions.

One of the most common places to see otherwise good people behaving badly is our nation’s roads and highways.  There is so much aggressive driving, so much inconsiderate driving, so much feeling of being “an exception to the rule” that driving for me personally is painful.  Just because I get up on the wrong side of the bed, or I am running late, or I do not like the type of car you are driving, it is not alright for me to take out my aggressions, my impatience, my distaste for your taste on you.  But when I do, I immediately need to take notice and make amends.  Now I am not going to then stop you just so I can apologize for my bad actions if for no other reason that it is unreasonable.  But more to the point, is it not what making amends to you means.  I this case what it means is I must find patience, I must not be aggressive.  In changing my ways I am making amends.  And in truth, that is the only way amends can be made.

Here is another example of how I used to be.  If at a checkout of a store the store employee gives me the wrong change and it is in my favor I would not notify them of the fact, even if or particularly if, it were a very small amount.  In doing so I was teaching myself to be dishonest which of course translated to much larger things.  They say the devil is in the details and this particular detail speaks to my honesty or lack of it.  That meant for acts of this sort the amend to be made was to make honesty an absolute.  I changed my way of going through life.

I really and truly dislike cold weather of any sort and this particular winter has been quite rough and doubled by an overabundance of snow.  Many was the morning that I felt myself becoming cranky because of one or both such things coming into play.  In the more distant past, my tact was to take out my crankiness on anyone who had the temerity to cross my path.  They did not deserve it but I did it anyway.  The amend here was simply to acknowledge that I am feeling cranky by I simply needed to work to keep that to myself and visit that crankiness on no one.

Today I look upon amends the same way I look at chocolate.  Well, pretty much anyway.  I invite amends because I have come to realize that it allows me to grow and be at peace with the universe.  Life is constantly throwing me curves but I have become rather good at hitting them out of the park.  But on those occasion that I cannot hit that curve out of the park for a home run, I can do nothing and be absolutely all right.  Amending me has brought so much peace to my life it is something I implore everyone to do.