Jim Simpson's Blog: "Middle Ground"

News of the death and funerals of friends and relatives inevitably raise questions about one’s own mortality.

Happy Sailing

“We’re all gonna die!” I am not sure of origins of this reality shocker when I first heard it as a child.  It must have been a difficult concept.  

At some point we all come to the realization that we will not always be here.  But when we are younger this idea is easily put aside as we head out into the world.   

Even the loss of close loved ones can be pushed aside by finding differences between those who died and ourselves such as: “she/he was/had …(X,Y or Z).and I am different because ….(fill in the blanks).”

I have now reached the age where I can no longer ignore the reality.  Within the next 25-30 years, all of my high school and college classmates, Marine and army buddies, cousins, siblings and other contemporaries will all be gone.  Also, some of my younger work colleagues and friends and relatives will likely be gone as well. 

Is there really a heaven? 

Aside from atheists and agnostics, most people seem to believe there is something else awaiting us when we die.  The major religions all explain this differently, but most have some description of an afterlife be it heaven, hell, or reincarnation. 

Is Heaven right for you?

What if everyone was truly equal in death?  What if in heaven there is no one who is very wealthy, poor, healthy, sick, brilliant, dull, gifted or limited in abilities? 

If everything was “fair” in heaven, then the very rich, healthy, brilliant and/or gifted people would no longer have an advantage. They would no longer be special.  They might even see this situation as a kind of hell.

Getting In

Another great unknown is the criteria for entrance. 

I was raised in a Christian Protestant family and even as a child I had trouble with the idea that some people would not get into heaven.  I was taught to understand that “bad” people and “non-believers” would be left outside the pearly gates.  That part I could understand.

What I had trouble understanding was what happened to babies too young to know about Jesus, or even to be baptized.  And what about the millions of people who were never exposed to “The word of God” that was presented to those of us who were lucky enough to be members of a Christian (preferably Protestant) church.  Were all of the millions of other people in the world all damned? Even the “good” ones? 

Heavenly Bodies

Another unknown was the form that we will take in heaven, assuming we will get in.  Do we have bodies like we do here on earth.  If so, will it be a young body or an old one? Will people who had to deal with disabilities in life be suddenly able bodied in Heaven?

Or will we become more of a spirit?  Will we have memories of our life on earth?  

Aunt Bunk

A number of years ago while on a family vacation in North Carolina, I attended the funeral of an in-law, Vivian’s Aunt Nelly Grace (AKA Aunt Bunk).   Prior to her death, Aunt Bunk had joined a very traditional, very Southern, Baptist Church. 

I had seen movies and tv shows that depicted a booming minister in a packed and very warm, Southern church where congregants shouted out, “Amen Brother!” at the top of their lungs.  However, this was no movie, it was the real deal!

I don’t think the preacher was really close to the late Aunt Bunk as he seemed to be looking often at his notes when it was time to insert her name (Nelly Grace) into the sermon. 

He was, however, very familiar with preaching at funerals and he painted a very vivid picture of where the dearly departed was now.  Aunt Bunk had walked through the pearly gates in the clouds and was now walking down streets literally paved in gold.  Liquid gold flowed down a river.  It was always sunny and comfortably warm in Heaven. 

According to the preacher, Aunt Bunk was now in the presence of our Lord and Savior who had been there to greet her personally. Or, as kids today might say it, “Bunk was now hanging out with none other than her bestie, JC himself.”

The preacher delivered the sermon with a gusto and flair that was legendary.  He went from a barely heard whisper to a 10 on the Richter scale in an instant.  It was clear to me that no one slept thru his sermons!

Then it turned really dark.  Yes, according to this preacher there was another place.  It was reserved for those who did not believe as he (and apparently his congregation) believed.  

The preacher’s description of Hell was not pleasant to say the least.  

I may have imagined it, but it seemed to me that he was looking a little too much and too often at those of us relatives who were sitting together and clearly were not members of his church. 

I also seem to remember that the “plate” was passed around right after the preacher’s warning about Hell.  It was a good time to “pay” for our sins and of course a healthy donation would increase the odds of “getting in” to Heaven.

Somehow, I think the good Rev had taken some liberties with his descriptions of both Heaven and Hell.  But, then again, who knows?

Singing to the Heavens

Singers across the spectrum have talked about death and Heaven including: 

Bob Dylan, who sang about, “Knocking on Heaven’s door.”

Country star Kenny Chesney sang, “Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but not now.”

Led Zeppelin questioned the idea of buying one’s way into heaven in their classic, “Stairway to Heaven”, saying, “Ooh, it makes me wonder.”

Soul, gospel, and blues legend Mavis Staples sang about a question many of us wonder, “What are they doing in Heaven today?

Willie Nelson who, while reminiscing about his departed friends, said he does not want to be, “the last man standing,” but then Willie wryly adds, “… well, on second thought, maybe I do!”

From Dust to Dust: Eternal Existence

Pop scientists like astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson are able to explain that matter is not destroyed, it just changes shape or becomes energy. Everything that existed at the time of the Big Bang 15 billion years ago still exists today and will for eternity.  So, in a very real sense we do last forever.  

It is not particularly reassuring, however, to know that the term “dust to dust” is a reality proven by science.  It may be true, at least about our bodies, but it is not what most of us think of as Heaven. Science so far does not have a good answer about what happens to our soul.

We all want to know the answer to the questions:

When will the bell toll for me?

And then what?

There is only one way to find out.  

Some people have committed suicide.  None of us know what causes people to take their own lives.  Like Willie Nelson and Kenny Chesney sang, most of us are more than willing to wait to find out what Heaven is all about.

Also, most of us will not know either when or how we will meet our end.   Some of us will have warning signs such as illness, others will have no warning. Here today, gone tomorrow.

To our loved ones left behind, how we die is bound to be less important than the loss itself. Will they find comfort in the fact they we may be reunited in Heaven?  Or will they just “go on” without us?

Too much?

Of course it is “too much,” but that is kind of my point.   Death is an important aspect of life.  We need to be able to face reality. The question, “What is next?” is hard to ignore.  

Please share what you believe about Heaven by clicking on the word “Comments” below and then scrolling to the bottom and leave your reply.

#

Socrates is credited with using thought provoking questioning to help his students identify, “The Truth.”

My own late father, Jim Simpson Sr., frequently asked, “What have we learned?” Dad used the question as a means of helping people make sense of what had just happened in any number of situations. 

We can all learn a lot from both Socrates and from my father by asking ourselves some really difficult questions.  We then need to be brutally honest with ourselves in analyzing our answers. 

One of the most popular phrases in the 60s came from the song (written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David) and popular movie (starring Michael Caine), “What’s it all about Alfie?”  My takeaway: “The bigger the question, the more important and difficult the answer.”

Seriously questioning oneself is a sign of maturity.  It is also an indicator of people who are able to face reality.   

The hardest questions are the probing ones we ask ourselves:

On what sources am I forming my attitudes and beliefs?

How am I spending my time? 

What is really important to me?

Is there a God?  

If so, do I do what he/she asks? 

 If there is not a higher being or cause, what is the point of it all?

Are my relationships as I would like them to be?

How do I need to change?

Many of my contemporaries (Old guys) have their own questions:

How much time do I have left?

Where do I want to live now that I can choose?

What are realistic expectations of myself (e.g., capabilities, health)?

What is my legacy?

Examples of people who do not ask themselves hard questions include those who display:

Blind obedience to a religion (Any religion).

Total fealty to another person (Any person). 

Unwavering belief in oneself or to one’s team or organization.

Of course, it is much easier to ask questions of others in identifiable groups with whom we have differences.  Following are some questions for some typical groups of “others” identified in today’s culture wars.

Here are some questions for Trumplings:

Do I really believe what he says?

What traits does he display that I would want to see in my own kids or grandkids?

For the lefties:

Do I really think that society can exist without police or military protection?

Are people better off when things are given to them or when they earn them?

And here are questions for the Independents among us:

Is it OK for me to just to sit on the sidelines?

When, if ever, do I speak out against extremists?

If the power of the vote is taken away from us, what will I do?

Answers

One of my favorite one-liners is, “For every difficult situation there is a simple answer…and it is wrong.”

Of course, this statement contradicts itself by providing a simplistic answer to a difficult question, but, hey, there is a huge grain of truth in it. 

Questioning ourselves is not easy.  Often, we may end up with complex and confusing answers we really don’t want to know. 

The truth is not always what we believe or want it to be.  Truth is also extremely difficult to determine.  It is an aspiration, not a destination. 

We can never fully understand what is absolutely true.  If we think that we know the absolute truth, we are deceiving ourselves.  

Nonetheless, both Socrates and Dad were on the right track. We can get closer to the truth, at least in our own lives, by honestly trying to answer the hardest questions we can ask ourselves.

Pundits in the regular and social media are currently crowing with negativity about the US economy.  The term “slump” is often used to describe the economy.  Bad news travels fast.  

Bad news also sells.  Virtually all the major news medias are jumping to the suggestion that we are in a “slump” and heading for a recession and/or stagflation (high inflation AND high unemployment). 

The problem for the pundits is that all of the news is not bad. The economy is also an area that politicians have limited control over and which is global in reach and nature. 

The inconvenient truth is that now, and almost always, economics is mixed bag.

Here for your consideration are some current bellwether economic indicators:  

Inflation is up (E.g. gas prices at all time high), highest in decades (This is bad).

Wages are up (good for workers, mixed bag for small business employers, great for Standard & Poor’s 500 CEOs whose salaries increased 18% last year).

New unemployment claims down (Good).

There are 11 million jobs available right now (Mixed: good for those looking for work, bad for small business employers)

Unemployment rate in the U.S is 3.6% (This is Pretty good – some economists use 3% as a sign of full employment – zero employment being impossible to reach because of normal changes in the workforce including job changes initiated by individuals.)

Stock market Standard and Poor’s 500 index was up 26.9% in 2021; but down so far in 2022. (Short term: Stocks go up, stocks go down; Long term, stocks generally go up – the key unknown is when, “How long do I have to wait?”)

According to the Federal Reserve, US Household Net Worth was at all time high as of the end of 2021 at $149.8 Trillion (On one hand this is good but then… There is wealth inequality and a disappearance of the middle class in the US.  Measuring wealth is complicated and there is no easy single number to look at. Suffice it to say that a very small number of people control vast amounts of wealth and the rich are getting richer.)

Media pundits and naysayers also tend to focus on what might happen as if it is happening now. (E.g. billboards and memes denouncing how the current administration has raised taxes). Hint: there is no legislation that has been passed that would raise federal tax rates. The last big tax hike was the tariffs on consumers who bought certain goods from China placed in 2018 (btw: any way you slice it, tariffs are a form of taxation. Remember the Boston Tea Party?) Federal Tax rates have not changed since 2017.

The Good Old Days?

Some would have us believe that everything was rosier under the previous administration, and yet…

The unemployment rate In Jan 2021 was 6.4% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2020, the final year of the last administration, the economy (GDP) shrank 3.4% and lost 9.4 million jobs. 

National debt grew over the four years from $19.5 Trillion in Fiscal Year2017  to $27.7 Trillion in FY 2020. This is a huge increase, especially during a time when we were supposedly cutting back on federal government spending. Source: US Treasury Department. 

Throughout history there has been a continuous cycle of feast or famine when it comes to the economy.  This is a world-wide cyclical economic phenomenon dating back to ancient times. The Bible refers in Genesis to seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine.  This is nothing new. 

Of course, even during hard times there are those who do well financially (e.g. buying property at bargain rates).  

Also, during the best of times there are always some left behind or displaced. The adage that, “A rising tide raises all ships.” is true; unless you don’t have a ship, in which case the adage, “How long can you tread water?”, is more appropriate.

My point: the economy is always a mixed bag.  

The economy is also extremely complex.  Pulling a few stats out randomly to prove a point (Like I have done here above) always gives an incomplete picture no matter what your political viewpoint. There are just too many ways to slice and dice the numbers.  And the numbers themselves can be very difficult to obtain, much less understand. 

Take unemployment for instance.  The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports six different rates including the one most commonly used by the press (BLS calls this U-3) which I used above.  It only includes those actually looking for work.  The other rates reported by BLS use different numerators and denominators so of course come up with different rates. This allows politicians, pundits or for that matter, anyone, to pick the rate that supports one’s views. 

So, Jim, what am I to think?  Do?

Economists use two terms that might be helpful to us: macroeconomics and microeconomics.   

Macro being society as a whole and micro being an individual.  Almost all of the talk is about macro with an occasional individual used as an example of how that person or family are impacted as a part of a macro trend. 

This means that most people, myself included, focus on “other” people.  

We might also want to ask, “how am I doing?” or “How are things where I live?

My suggestion: We all look closer to home and honestly ask ourselves these questions:

Do you have a job?

Have you been forced to change careers in the past two years?

Are you retired with a steady income?

Do you own a home?   

Do you own it outright or have a mortgage?  Interest rate? Monthly mortgage payment?

If you rent, how much do you pay monthly? 

Is your rent or overall housing costing more than 30% of your gross income?

Is your car paid for?

Do you have any long-term debt beyond a mortgage?

How much $ do you have in savings? Retirement accounts?

Do you know what your net worth is?

Have any of your tax rates, (local, State or Federal) increased in the past year? Note: This question is about the rates, not the amount paid because one’s income and or property values may have changed.  Rates are all set by law. Has the rate actually changed?

Have you lost your job in the past year? Are you on unemployment?

Do you have high speed Wi-Fi in your home? Air conditioning? Cable TV? A Smart phone? Computer?

Do you have any school loans outstanding?

Has a family member lost their job in the last year? 

If so, were they fired or did they quit?

Are most people you know personally who want a job currently working?  

Is anyone you know personally on unemployment?  

If so, are they actively looking for work?

Are there empty business store fronts around you?

Is there construction of new buildings or homes near you?

Are there “Help Wanted” signs out in your neighborhood/town?

Are there homeless people living in tents or RVs?

What kind of cars are in the parking lot at your local Target or Walmart? (E.g. Beaters or newer models?)

Are parking lots empty or full? 

Do you see any trains, trucks or ships near your home? 

Are they moving goods?

Are roads around you busy or empty? 

Are there any active food banks in your neighborhood?

Are there items you need but cannot obtain?

Items you want, but cannot get?  

Are items you need or want unavailable or are they available but too expensive?

Do you have grown children or other adults living with you?

Have you moved out of state within the past year?  

Have you moved within your state in the past year?

Have you bought or sold a home within the last two years?

Have you bought a new vehicle (car or truck) within the last year?

If you can answer the questions above you should be able to answer the question, “Is there a slump where you live?” And, perhaps more to the point, “How am I doing financially?

At this point you might say, “OK, I have answered these questions about microeconomics, but, “How do we get to The Whole Truth about the economy? After all, macroeconomics does impact us all, especially our investments.”

Certainly, we can and should read/watch/see/listen to a wide range of responsible news sources.  Investments such as in the stock market or cryptocurrency are not something we can personally observe, and we must rely on other sources of information.  (Note: You are welcome to read the sources I use and consider reliable in my previous post on this blog titled “Truth”)

At the same time, we need to look around us and see what is really going on in our own hometowns.  What is really going on in our own economic life and in the lives of people we know personally?  What signs of economic activity can we see in our own communities?

What are your thoughts on the economy?  Are you personally doing OK?  

I would love to hear your take on this issue.  You are invited to click on “Comments” below, then scroll to the bottom and leave your reply.  

“We are not all equal. “

This headline on a meme recently placed on Facebook caught my attention.  It clearly was intended to evoke a response, and it certainly did.  

I instantly flashed back to a line in the popular political satire book by George Orwell, Animal Farm, which was required reading in my high school.  In the story there was a sign painted on one of the farm buildings that read, “All animals are equal.” The barnyard revolution described in the metaphorical book had a tragic ending when the pigs who had started the revolution assumed the same roles as their former masters.  The sign was then modified to read “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

The meme I saw logically led to the same conclusion:  If we are not all equal, then some must be unequal.

The meme went on to state that the writer had worked hard all his life and that some “unnamed others” were wanting not to have to pay their debts.  Defenders of the meme note that this was really the message.  Sure, some people do work harder than others and I actually agree that everyone should pay their debts. Had the meme started with, “Some people work harder than others.”, or even,“Some people want something for nothing,” I would have listened to their argument.

But this meme was not really meant to be about either hard work or debt.  It was used as a first step in justifying unequal treatment of some people. The first sentence, which was in larger type and bolded, was perfectly clear, “We are not all equal.”  

Autocrats are only too happy to promote and to justify the idea that people are unequal.  It serves their interests in keeping power to themselves.  They need an “other” who, because they are unequal, does not enjoy equal treatment under the law. This can include virtually anyone who disagrees with the dictator.  

Just like the new barnyard rulers in Orwell’s book, autocrats can justify unequal treatment by identifying those who are “Not Equal.” 

Identifying some people as “Not Equal” has historically been used to justify wrongheaded governmental policies. Examples include the following: Slavery, the decimation of native peoples, the Holocaust, and keeping women from voting.

Personally, I believe that all people are created equal.  Virtually all religions teach that all people are equal in the eyes of God. 

As an American, I am a strong believer in both equal opportunity and in equal treatment under the law.  No, we don’t always measure up to this ideal, but nonetheless, I believe equality for all is worth striving for.

Saying that, “We are not all equal.” is just wrong. 

What do you believe?  (Please Click on “Comments” below).

I am bothered by a pronoun I see and hear used a lot recently in both person-to-person conversations and in on-line discussions, “Them.”  Another problem word is the closely related subject pronoun, “They.”

As pronouns, these two words relate to plural nouns such as a word like “Presbyterian” or “Canadians,” used to describe members of an identifiable group. 

 I am bothered by the way “They” and “Them” are now being used indiscriminately to ID people one hates or fears.  

“Them” and “They” can be wielded without having any regard for the truth.

These words are being used to create a false binary choice (e.g. “My way, or the highway”).

The use of “They” or “Them” allows one to broadly assail anyone who the user does not agree with on virtually any issue. 

The improper use of “Them” or “They” is yet another way in which Americans are being pulled apart. 

I have seen “They” or “Them” used by extremists from both the far left and the far right.  More recently, I have even seen these words used by people who have seemed to me in the past to be open to differing viewpoints.   

EXTREMISTS HAVE NO SHAME

Extremists will use any means to tear us apart.

Where do you live?  Where do “They” live?

Friends have talked about the differences between Red States and Blue States.  Depending on the individual’s prejudices, either “Red” or “Blue” is often simply categorized as being either all good or all bad.  

Examples include, “They want to have a socialist government” or, “They just want to scare people by carrying guns openly in public.” The population of the entire state? Really?  

I challenged one friend to tell me if Pennsylvania was a Blue or a Red State.  I got no response.  Of course it was a trick question because Pennsylvania has elected politicians from both parties and power within the state is clearly balanced between the two political parties with a large segment of adults, about  30%, who sit out the democratic political process and don’t even vote.

There is clearly a divide between rural and urban counties in virtually every state. However, even where we live much of the time, in mostly rural and staunchly Republican Adams County, Pennsylvania, one can find real live Democrats.  

Go into the Ragged Edge Coffee Shop in Gettysburg on Tuesday mornings and you may well find a group of aging hippies loudly and publicly announcing very progressive stances, right here in the middle of what some might call a “Red” county.  

Likewise, in Seattle there are arch conservatives and even some domestic white nationalist terrorists.  Don’t believe this, just listen to Seattle conservative radio talk-show host Jason Rantz for a few minutes, you will get the idea.   

In either location, or for that matter any location, it is a gross overstatement when talking about an entire population to say, “They just want to (fill in the blanks).” 

Extremists use “They” or  “Them” to categorize entire groups.  But they don’t stop there.  To further pull us apart, they use even more inflammatory phrases than just “Red” or “Blue.” 

To really add shock value, these extremists use phrases such as, “woke bleeding-heart tree-hugging libtards,” or, conversely, “ignorant mouth-breathing racist redumblican trumpanzees.”  

Using “Them” or “They” allows one to cast blame broadly without being tethered to any facts or personal knowledge of what an individual believes, much less who these people really are and what they actually do. 

I have seen right wing users link gun control legislation directly to Chinese efforts to invade the US, as in, “Why do you think “They” want to take away our guns.?

Other right wingers have said things like, “They” just want something for nothing and “They” do not want to work.  “They hate America and our way of life.”

Lefties can use this tact also as in, “They are supporting Big Money interests bent on keeping the common people in their place.” Too many people try to explain something complex by saying that, “they are really all just racists.”

“They” want to avoid taxes in order to keep wealth they have unfairly garnered from others.” Or, “They” are all gun-crazy racist lunatics who want to intimidate others.”

Worse yet, the use of the word “They” allows the user to conflate a number of issues or ideas and focus anger that in some cases is not warranted.  This allows dispersions at an unspecific “They” or “Them” which is used to describe anyone who disagrees with the user on virtually any issue. 

FUZZY THINKING

Psychologists use the term Fundamental Attribution Error to describe the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational and environmental explanations for an individual’s observed behavior.  People often over-emphasize dispositional and personality-based explanations.  

A simper way to describe this is the tendency to believe that what people “do” necessarily reflects who they “are.”  This thought process overlooks and/or discounts the circumstances that may lead to the “Why” which often tells a lot more about what is really going on. 

When we use phrases like, “They are all (lazy, racist, war mongers, tree huggers, or fill in the similar character assumption)” statements, we are making the Fundamental Attribution Error.  

We often assign fundamental character faults to explain the actions of others while giving ourselves a pass for exactly the same action.  

For example, when someone else is late for work it is easy to say “they” just don’t care about their co-workers.  And yet, when we are sometimes late ourselves, there is always a good reason.  

CANCEL CULTURE

I believe this discounting of the circumstances and not focusing on facts leads directly to the practice of simply identifying a person as either a “They” or “One of them.” Disregarding circumstances and details also more easily leads to cancel culture.

Cancel culture is total rejection of anyone who disagrees with the expected actions or beliefs of their “tribe.” This is true for the right as well as the left.  Just ask Republican Representative Liz Cheney, quarterback Colin Kaepernick, writer j. k. Rollins, or Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks.  Each of these well known people has been berated and chastised by members of their own “tribe” because they have not strictly conformed to a set of behaviors and ideas that are expected of them. 

Step out of the line with an idea some extremists don’t like and you may find yourself banned. One can be banned even from groups they were once a part of or even revered by. One can quickly become one of “Them” by expressing an idea or acting in a way that is different than what is expected by their tribe.

Extremists on all sides engage in what we now call cancel culture as in, “ If you don’t ascribe closely to all of my agenda you are, “one of “them”.”

JAIL THE GUILTY BASTARDS

Don’t get me wrong, there are clearly assholes on all sides of virtually any issue that divides us.  I am in no way suggesting we refrain from calling these jerks out.   

In some cases they should be jailed.  My concern is that we tend to paint everyone with the same brush without a serious consideration of the circumstances and facts.  The details matter. 

We build straw men who are easy to hate, then lump them into the whole and automatically assume “they” all condone the actions of this obviously wrong straw man (or straw woman).

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OFFENDER 

Phrases used by both the left and the right include:

“They” want to take over the U.S. by means of force. 

“They” want to take away our liberties. 

“They” don’t care about the people, especially those of us who work for a living in the middle class. 

“They” just want power for themselves. 

“They” don’t care about the Constitution. 

“They” lie. 

“They,” are haters. 

Depending on who is using the word, “They,” we can include any of the following: as “one of them”:  Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Bill Gates, The Koch Brothers, The Russians, The Chinese, the Israelis, the Palestinians, “Hollywood”, “Red necks”; Evangelicals, Atheists, Proud Boys, or Antifa.  For that matter almost anyone who is wealthy, famous, powerful or happens to be on TV is subject to being “one of them.”   

FIND SOMEONE EASY TO HATE

Typically the user of the word “They” will identify some specific issue that is of concern to that person.  Then the person will identify one well-known person or celebrity who is opposed to the user’s position and has made some outrageous statement or done something obviously wrong. The clearly assumed position is that all persons who disagree with you on any number of other issues automatically ascribe to that statement and condone the actions of this person.  

Right wing people will pull up some obscure statement by a “celebrity” like Barbara Streisand and declare, “see, that is what “they” all think. “

Lefties pick certified religious extremists like Franklin Graham (also accused of weird sexual activity) and then say, “see, “they” all think the same way as Franklin Graham and do not really want religious freedom, they just want everyone to buy into their views on religion.”

In many cases the condemned statement being quoted may have pulled out of context.  The statement can also be twisted something like, “They” just want so and so and then, “They,” will only be happy when “they” can…(fill in the blanks).’

HERE ARE MY RECOMMENDATIONS:

A partial solution would be to forego using the words “They” or “Them” altogether and then either substitute the name of someone who has specifically supported an idea or position or done something you don’t like.  Stick to the facts.

Use “I” when talking about our own positions and use the word “we” when talking about someone who disagrees with you in part but with whom you want to find common ground. 

Examples:  “I” vs “We” statements 

““I” believe that we need to limit access to guns for certain individuals, like felons, terrorists and the mentally deranged.” Or conversely, “”I” want to be sure that my right to bear arms is not taken away.”

“We” need to find ways to ensure that all law-abiding citizens can “bear arms” to protect themselves while at the same time keeping guns out of the hands those who are most dangerous and who should not have access to guns.”

“I think the system is not fair to certain individuals.”

“We need to work together as citizens to ensure that working class people have an equal chance to succeed based on their own merits.”

“I” am convinced that elections are vital and conducted fairly or conversely, elections are not fair because some people keep others from Voting, or conversely people who are not quailed to vote are voting.”

“We” need to work together to identify means to make sure elections are conducted fairly while at the same time ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to vote.”

Remember, “we” doesn’t mean people who agree with you – it includes those with whom you disagree. “We” need to find common ground. 

Also, drop the use of memes.  Memes are the worst.  Try not to use them.  

Yes, occasionally an idea will be very well articulated in a meme, but often quotes are mis-identified and the factoids are overly simplistic.

Also, I really don’t want to see a meme you send to me, I want to know what You personally think and believe.  

After all, blindly forwarding a contentious meme is just what “They” want.

Note: To respond with your thoughts click on “Comment” below. Then scroll to the bottom where you can leave a reply. If that does not work, you can send a response to my e-mail and I can post your response – sorry, somehow the “Leave a comment” option is not visible anymore.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine rekindles what I believe is a fundamental question for all times:  “Who is going to make the decisions: Elected representatives or autocrats?”

In the case of the Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the conflict is not based in religious or ethnic differences which seem to be prominent in most past wars.  The invasion of Ukraine is based on a fundamental difference in the form of government.  Putin sees the very existence of a neighboring country that can actually choose its own leaders as a threat to his autocratic rule.  

In my blog post titled “Government,” I discuss my thoughts on what it is that governments should and should not do.  My ideas are just that, my ideas.  There are many other valid views about the role and scope of government.  With the exception of anarchists, who are really not worthy of discussion nor for that matter of any kind of intercourse, all rational people see some role for government in any society. 

The fundamental question then is, “Who?,” will control the government and make decisions that impact people.   For almost all of human history those governmental decisions have been made by rulers who, by hook or by crook, have amassed the power to impose their will and decisions on the rest of the population.  

Short of an invasion or assassination, autocratic rulers have basically stayed in power until they die and then the power transfers either to their heirs or there is a re-shuffling which results in a new single leader.  While a few rulers have been called benevolent dictators, they are very few in number and the designation itself is pretty much an oxymoron. 

Although the idea of people ruling has its roots at least as far back as the Greek philosophers, autocratic systems of government dominated worldwide until they were fundamentally changed by the American Revolution in the later part of the 18th Century. The Americans threw off the power of the ruler (King George 3 at the time) and replaced that autocracy with a representative government organized as a democratic republic. 

Scholars can certainly point to a number of economic realities, including slavery, which contributed to the desire for revolution.  And yet, the fundamental document upon which the government of the U.S. is formed, The Constitution, starts with the words, “We The People…”

Since the American Revolution, the arc of change has been towards more involvement in the selection process.  Women, Native Americans,  Blacks, and even 18 year-olds have all joined the ranks of voters who select the politicians who ultimately make the rules by which we live.  This is done at the local, State, and National levels.

The system is certainly not perfect.  Money, much of it “dark money” that comes from who-knows-where, plays a significant role in both who gets selected to run and who actually can win.  Truth in political discourse is often difficult to ferret out.  Voting rights are often limited or withheld.   Winston Churchill once said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” 

All of these criticisms of democracy have some truth in them, but more or less, the majority of people choose who have the important decision making jobs.  Elections are also the one legal way to remove those who the people feel are not doing the job they were elected to do. 

Over the past several hundred years a number of countries have followed the example of the United States including our old overlords, the British.   And yet, the idea of people making the ultimate choice is very far from universal.  

Autocrats tend to want to stay in office indefinetly. Over time, with nobody to stop them, autocrats often become tyrants who abuse anyone and everyone who questions their authority.  

Tyrants will kill those who they see as any kind of threat to their power.  Putin is currently in the headlines, but he is not alone in the current tyrant category:  Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping, Nicolas Maduro, and Mohammed bin Salmon all have shown both a willingness and capability of eliminating any opposition by use of lethal force.  In other words they are clearly tyrants.   There have been historic tyrants who some of us believe now reside in a very much hotter place including: Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin,  Fidel Castro, and many more too numerous to mention. 

Which brings me back to the current situation we (people of the world) face: “Who will make decisions for us, autocrats (many of whom will become tyrants eventually) or elected representatives?” The choices/questions people must face are, “Who will make the important decisions in our lives?” and “If we don’t like the decisions being made, can we peacefully replace these rulers by means of elections?”

There are no easy answers here. 

I saw a quote recently that went something like, “Tyrants won’t stop until somebody stops them.”  I don’t recall who this is attributed to, but it makes a lot of sense to me.   

While I believe this to be true, it brings up an even more difficult question, “How do we stop a tyrant?.” 

Here are four options:  Prayer; Economic Sanctions; Military Action; Wait. 

I join many of my family and friends in praying for the Ukrainian people.  Some people say that we just need to put our trust in God, and all will be well.  Jesus taught us to not only help the poor and sick, but to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.  This is easier said than done for many of us.  I can’t quite get out of my head the final line of lyrics from one of Bob Dylan’s most famous protest songs,  “…If God’s on our side, He’ll stop the next war.”   Will he? 

Economic Sanctions sound good, until you really look at them closely.  Like many others, I smile at the thought of impounding a Russian Oligarch’s Yacht.  “Serves him right!”  But one of the problems with tyrants is that they do what they want, people be damned.  Sanctions hurt regular people more than the tyrant or his oligarch friends.  Further complicating the issue is the global economic structure of interdependence. If sanctions work, then how was Castro able to  continue to rule Cuba from when he took over in 1959 until his death in 2016?

“When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.”  While this old adage does not specifically refer to military force, it is worth considering.  I spent 29 years in uniform and certainly am a believer in deterrence and that sometimes military force is the best solution.  Note that I said ,“sometimes,” and therein lies the rub.  It is extremely difficult to determine when the military option is called for.  And, as many have noted, it is much easier to start a war than to end one.  Further complicating the issue is that three of the biggest tyrants today, Putin, XI, &  Kim Jong Un, all have nuclear weapons that can essentially destroy large portions of any country they want to, including ours.  Sure, they too would die, but if we are dealing with unstable people, where are the guardrails? 

Let’s just wait and see.  It is possible that Putin will change once he gets what he wants in Ukraine.  Maybe he will rebuild the country and leave his other neighbors alone.  Does anyone believe this?  Or we can hope that he will be assassinated by cooler heads in the Kremlin.  This might happen, but it might not.  Putin is 69 years old and, like the rest of us, he will eventually die.  But of course we don’t know when and we don’t know if the next guy will be any better.

Sadly none of these four options seems particularly good to me.  

I wish I had an answer, but really all I have are more questions. 

“Well this is just a little Peyton Place and you’re all Harper Valley Hypocrites.” 

With these song lyrics, written by Tom T. Hall and made famous by country singer Jeannie C. Riley, Mrs. Johnson “Socked it to the Harper Valley PTA.”  Although somewhat of a gimmick song, “Harper Valley PTA” nonetheless went on to win a Grammy in 1969 and the Academy of Country Music named it the song of the year.  Critics may cringe, but Country and many Pop fans liked it. The song  also resonated with all of us who can’t stand hypocrisy. 

Full disclosure: I, and I assume all of you reading this, have exhibited hypocrisy at some time in our lives.  I have no idea why, but it seems to be a part of human nature.  We often behave in ways that we at the same time deride.  

Politicians and celebrities are of course the worst examples and it seems the more autocratic or famous they are the greater the hypocrisy.  I’ll spare you my examples of political or celebrity hypocrisy as I am sure you each have more than enough examples of your own.  

For now I will be contemplating and focusing more on my own navel. 

Virtually all religions and philosophies condemn hypocrisy.  I could neither think of nor find an example of anyone supporting the practice of hypocrisy.  It seems that everyone sees it as a bad thing.  

And yet…we all are sometimes hypocrites.

Here are some personal examples of hypocrisy that I am not particularly proud of: 

Example 1 – I speak out about against an unfair system that allows people to go homeless and hungry, yet while on the street, I often look the other way when a panhandler asks for food or money, both of which I have the ability to provide to them.  

Example 2 – The climate is certainly changing and green house gasses clearly are accelerating this change.  Like many of you, I think that “we need to do something” and yet I travel by air cross-country, or at least I did until the pandemic, several times annually burning God only knows how much jet fuel.

Example 3 – Like many of you I also enjoy the ambiance of a good old-fashioned wood fire. Since we don’t have wood-burning fireplaces in either of our two homes, we use electric “fake” fireplaces pretending that the generation of electricity does not involve fossil fuels and at some point pollute our environment with green-house gases.

Example 4 – It’s very woke now to talk about reparations even though I, and all of you who are not Native American, live on land that at one time was stolen.  If you are white, you and I also have most likely had a leg up in educational opportunity and passed down family wealth, even if just a little.  And yet, I know nobody who is giving up their house or land because it was at one time stolen from native Americans, including myself.

Example 5 – This very blog is promoted as being  “Middle Ground” with openness to competing ideas.  It has been pointed out to me, however, that, like virtually all blogs or online opinions, I tend to cater to people who already think like me.  

Guilty as charged on all of the examples of hypocrisy. 

For each of these personal examples where I have been hypocritical there are of course quick and easy rationalizations:  

Rationalization 1 – “The panhandler will just use the money for drugs.” 

Rationalization 2 – “Travel by air allows us to visit other parts of the world and enhance our knowledge of other peoples and them of us thus helping to create world peace. At least I am only traveling within the U.S., not really polluting like those wealthy people who travel Internationally.” 

Rationalization 3 – “Electric stoves are at least better than wood stoves and even wood stoves are better than they used to be.  Fireplaces bring us back to a simpler time.” 

Rationalization 4 – “My family ancestors did not actually steal any land nor were they slave owners. They just worked hard, saved their money and left me a little. Others had the same opportunities as my ancestors.”  

Rationalization 5 – “My blog is directed only at family and friends therefore it is only natural that most readers agree with me.”

You get the point.  We can rationalize almost anything if we want to, even our own hypocrisy. 

Rationalization may make us feel better about ourselves.  It does not, however, change the reality that sometimes we act like hypocrites.

If you think you have never been hypocritical, I suggest you look deeper inside. 

If you have things you have been hypocritical about that you don’t mind sharing, I’d love to hear about it.  Click on Leave a comment below. 

In one of the last songs he wrote, Merle Haggard penned one of my favorite all-time lines in any song or poem, “Some of us fly,…ALL of us fall.”  Merle was talking about the entirety of our lives and how it is unpredictable and that nothing is guaranteed, except the fall.  

The song is not about death per se, but in the back of one’s mind it is not possible to hear the words, “All of us fall” without thinking about the end of our own lives or those of a loved one.  At an early age we all learn from our parents about death and how it is permanent. Most shockingly, we learn that sometime we are all going to die. 

“Sometime” came Sunday, May 2, 2021, for my dear brother John. 

Many things have been written, said and sung about the importance of savoring each and every day we have.  The day after we heard about John, we were on a walk when Marianne stopped to show appreciation to a landscaper for the good work he was doing.  

It was a pretty normal conversation, the man looked pleased that Marianne had noticed his work, then talk shifted to an upcoming storm cloud.  The man shrugged off the impending storm with his parting comment, “I’m just glad to be on the planet.”

The landscaper had no idea how appropriate and profound his words were to us at that time as we both grappled with the loss of John.  

John was 71 when he died.  It is impossible not to remember that our parents both lived to be 93.  When both Mom and Dad passed it was sad but at the same time a relief for both of them.  Mom’s engine just ran out of steam and in Dad’s case his brilliant mind had lost its way in the last few years.  Also, they had outlived most of their own contemporaries, families and friends in their own generation.  

John’s life was cut short, as sadly, are the lives of so many others. Losing a sibling is different than losing a parent.  The latter is expected, but not the former. It also cannot be denied that no matter what else, it is impossible not to think about one’s own future,  “Am I next?”  

As I am sure most people ask when they lose a loved one, “What would John want us to do?”  My guess is that he would say something like, “Live life to the fullest, move forward, play tennis.” Or maybe John would just say, “Have a beer.”

It takes a long while to realize it, at least it did for me, but the real value in life is not found in personal achievement, money, things, glory/celebrity or even in dedication to a just cause.  

The most common denominator and most limited resource, is time.  Loving relationships are even more valuable than time, and they can exist long beyond the time allotted to each us. 

As I reflect, it is easy to look back and say I wish I had spent just a little more time with John.  There are many quotes about the past, present and future.  One that comes to mind is, “Remember the past, plan for the future, but live for today, because yesterday is gone and tomorrow may never come.”

As the landscaper said, every day we need to be, “Just glad to be on the planet.”  

With these three words, “We the People…”,  Americans changed human history by asserting that leaders would be chosen by the citizens.  There is only one means for this to work: The vote. 

It has become clear, however, that many people do not trust the outcome of our elections.  “Why” this is so is a subject for a different post, but it is clear that millions of U.S citizens currently mistrust the vote count. 

We must, therefore, restore faith in the vote and insure that all eligible citizens have an opportunity to choose their leaders.   We must make election vote totals Indisputable.

The five steps listed below would restore confidence in the vote totals.  The election results would be Indisputable

Enactment of these five steps listed below would not resolve all voter suppression and eligibility issues.  Ensuring that all eligible citizens have an opportunity to vote is an issue that will need to be solved separately. 

Here are five steps that can make our election vote count results Indisputable: 

1.  Align voter registration 100% with State Drivers Licenses/IDs 
2.  Increase penalties for voter fraud
3.  Use counterfeit-proof paper ballots
4.  Seal all ballots in signed and traceable election envelopes
5.  Ensure maximum Visibility/Transparency of Vote Counting   

Align voter registration 100% with State Drivers Licenses or State Issued Identity Cards. If someone has a driver’s license or State ID and is otherwise eligible to vote, they would be automatically registered to vote.  There is no need for two data bases.  Voters must possess a legal (and now enhanced) license that clearly identifies them, confirms citizenship and address, and includes their signature. In other words, use the exact same data base for voter registration that each state already has for DL/State IDs.  The DL/ID card is the de facto Voter Registration Card. People who do not have a cuurent DL/ID (e.g. someone who moved recently) could still vote using provisional ballots which would need to be validated separately before being counted.

Increase penalties for voter fraud. To deter voter fraud, greatly increase the federal legal penalties for any person who votes more than once or who changes the vote of another person.  The exact amount of fines should be set by Federal law.  I would set this at $1,000 for voting twice (which could conceivably be done accidentally).  For each illegally placed vote over two (i.e. intentional fraud), I would place a hefty deterrent fine at $100,000 per illegal vote.  Enforcement would be strictly through the law enforcement and legal/court system, not by state or federal politicians.

Use counterfeit-proof ballots Print 100% of all Ballots on counterfeit-proof paper applying the same security standards currently used for U.S. currency.  Include serial numbers on ballots for total accountability. Paper ballots allow for both machine and hand re-counting. 

Seal all ballots in signed and traceable election envelopes.   All ballots (including those submitted at polling places) must be placed into a sealed Election Ballot Envelope.  The Envelopes would not be opened until they reach the location where votes are counted.  The Envelope must contain a serial number, the voter’s full legal name and address and a place for the voter to sign their name in ink thereby verifying that the single enclosed ballot represents their will.  Signatures can be checked using Artificial Intelligence scanners (and/or human backup) with the signature matched/compared with the individual’s enhanced drivers license signature.  The number of ballots must equal the number of signed envelopes.  

Maximize Transparency at Vote Counting Centers   Wherever votes are counted, there should be maximum ability of the public to watch the process.  In addition to designated poll watchers inside the voting counting center, there should be live-feed from cameras covering all aspects of the process of receiving the ballots, counting them, and storing them.  If buildings that are secure can also have full visibility from the street, (i.e. glass fronts with public viewing allowed) that would be even better. 

SUMMARY:   These five steps could be accomplished with a single bi-partisan piece of Federal legislation and the accompanying funding.  The law would apply to all Federal General Elections.  

States would retain the right to: Issue their own driver’s license/ID cards and maintain their data base in accordance with “Enhanced Driver’s License” criteria already established/required by the federal government (i.e. no change from what all states are doing right now);  determine eligibility for absentee/mail in ballots; identify polling places and hours; designate locations where votes will be counted and stored; set dates for primaries; set standards for who actually appears on the ballot; set deadlines for postmarks and ballot submission; set standards/rules for use of provisional ballots; and to decide whether the State wants to implement the same five requirements noted above on State and Local elections (highly recommended).

As noted before, enactment of these five steps would not resolve all voter suppression and eligibility issues. Ensuring that all eligible citizens have an opportunity to vote is an issue that will need to be solved separately. 

What these five steps would do is restore confidence in the vote totals.  The election results would be Indisputable. 

“What say ye” to this proposal?  Please click on Leave a comment below.