THE TIMES THEY SHOULD BE A-CHANGING

There sure has been a lot of noise going on in the big cities lately. I wish I had a better idea of what the ruckus was really about. It started out about white policemen killing blacks like they were run away slaves because the police have nothing better to do. Then after awhile, anybody with brains enough to walk and carry a sign at the same time would have to have realized the Brown/Garner deaths would have happened regardless of the race of either the police or the offenders, so the protests/riots evolved into whatever they are about today. You can't tell the protesters' purpose by reading the signs because they appear to be various signs left over from a previous protest and were kept under the protester's/rioter's beds in their parents' basements until the next perceived social injustice.

The closest I can get to understanding a purpose is listening to black Liberal "leaders" in the media. What the leaders seem to be saying is the protester/rioters want, (even though I doubt half the street walkers could enunciate a reason), is significant improvement in the black/police interactions. Our completely unprejudiced Uniter-n-Chief jumped right in with the solution--more training for the police and to provide the police with less equipment (military seconds). I may be dense, and certainly not as intelligent as our President, but doesn't the term "black/police INTERACTION" lead one to the belief that more than one of the parties should be involved?

I don't care how much sensitivity training you give a policeman, today when he or she approaches a car with four black youths in their late teens early 20s in the dead of night, the officer's sphincter muscle immediately tightens up and adrenalin drips down the leg. The officer knows the statistics that show during the latest recorded time period, blacks, at 14 % of the population, committed more than half the murders. Wouldn’t it be nicer for everyone if the officer could approach that car the same way he or she would approach a car with four white women, late 50s early 60's coming home from a librarians' conference ?

To make that desired interaction occur, I personally believe whites and the police have changed plenty. It is now time for the blacks to change. Time to put on their big boy pants and alter the stereotype. For any lasting change in police/black relationship, THE BLACKS HAVE TO CHANGE!

The stereotyping of a certain element of black society by both black and white is not new. This "black changing" concept is not some crazy conservative wild hair. Read what none other than Reverend Jesse Jackson said in 1993:

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.. "

The Rev. understood the problem, but still will not push back at that portion of the black community that creates his, and many others, fear of being followed down a dark street by a black youth. When will the black leaders take responsibility and help those looking up to them for guidance to evolve, and not spend 100% of their limited leader time providing those who desperately need help to change with excuses for their current behavior?

I saw a video on Facebook the other day that gave me great hope that the necessary change can occur not from the leaders but from the folks themselves.

http://www.ryot.org/video-people-react-to-white-girlfriend-in-a-black-barbershop/497893

The majority of black folks know change is necessary. They are embarrassed because all blacks are painted with the same brush (This next video from Chris Rock speaks to this and is well worth your time if you have high tolerance for profanity.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51vFbsZkhXU

While black leaders speak to the fringes of society (Chris Rock's n***, the ones who thrive on being victims) making them feel inadequate and incapable of change. Those looking for guidence are stuck because they are victims of something that happened a couple of hundred years ago about which nothing can be done today (but somebody other than them should certainly have to pay).

Enough has been said, and for much too long, by our politicians and self-appointed black leaders about how the police and white society can, and should, change. Let's spend some time looking at how the blacks can and should change THEIR side of the equation.

Here are 4 simple steps (not simple to do, but simple to understand) and a good start to work on the transition from being a victim to being in control. These steps are provided by Walter Williams, a black economic professor at Georgetown:

..."Williams' road map out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits."

Let's test out the good professor's theory:

Complete high school---only 52 % of black male ninth-graders graduate from high school 4 years later, 78% of whites.

Get a job--unemployment rate: 11.1% black; 4.9% white (If an increase in the minimum wage goes through watch the 11.1 % number shoot up.)

Get married before children--In 2010 48.8% of black men and 45.2 % of black women never married in contrast to 27.4 percent and 20.7 percent respectively for whites. Sixty-seven percent black children and 25% white children are in single parent families. (A black child was more likely to grow up living with both parents during slavery days than he or she is today.)

Law abiding citizen-- blacks comprise 14% of the American population, but make up 40% of the inmates in jail or prison.

Now was professor Williams right about that poverty part?

In 2012, 27.2% of blacks and 9.7 % of whites were living in poverty. The annual median income of black households in 2012, $33,321 compared to the nation at $51,017

Consider this. The prejudice against all blacks may have little to do with skin color, but more to do with poverty and the resultant attitudes and behaviors. If we follow Professor Williams' "road map," out of that undesirable economic condition, and if Jesse Jackson thought he had following him a law abiding, married father, high school graduate with a job, he could have cranked his stress level down a few notches.

Most of the riots and the wanton destruction of local businesses we have seen on TV recently I'm sure embarrasses any self-respecting black. From this turmoil will hopefully come, not whites diminishing themselves, but blacks elevating themselves. It is essential new black leadership emerges that emphasize how special blacks are, rather than how evil whites are. We can only hope.

WORDS MEAN SOMETHING--OR DO THEY?

"Don't take a fence down until you know why it was put up" G. K. Chesterton

As a conservative this is one of my favorite quotes, because as a conservative I'm more of a traditionalist not willing to invest my time fixing things that are not broken. Liberals on the other hand seem to see most things as in a state of flux. Everything progresses. (Progressives?) The most significant example would be their vision of a flexible, free-flowing, malleable Constitution. An example of lesser significance in the big picture, but something we encounter every day, is taking words with perfectly functional definitions and changing them to achieve a particular political outcome. For example, let's look at the Google definition of the word "minority."

Minority: the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.

Consider that definition and think about where our politicians and media spend much of their time:

African-Americans comprise 14% of the US population. Any time been spent lately on this minority segment of our society? Watching politicians dance around and cower in fear over 14% would make one think they're not too bright in the math department.

Self-proclaimed members of the LGBT community number approximately 4%. My guess is less than half would get married, if permitted. So for 2% of the population we should change the traditional meaning of the word marriage? Politicians are stumbling all over themselves to get on that band wagon

Hourly workers making minimum wage are under 3%. For 3% the government gets involved in what is strictly the business of the business (paying workers what they are worth). Messing with the natural order of economics for a handful of people affects the pay of every level in the business, the price of product and potentially suppressing hiring levels. Does that upheaval seem worth it to pass, at best, feel good legislation?

Living below the government imposed poverty line are 15% of us. In the 50 years since the inception of the "War On Poverty" U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. How are we doing? Looks good though, doesn't it?

Amount spent annually in the U.S. on the "War On Drugs" is more than $51 billion.

This amount is spent on 9.4 percent of the population aged 12 or older who are current (past month) illicit drug users. When you consider that expenditure on so poor an outcome, maybe we should add Congress to the drug numbers.

English is spoken in 80% of homes, so for 20% of non English speakers we should all be "Pressing 1 for English"?

We are tip-toeing around the 0.6 % of Muslims in the US, and acquiescing to every demand by the 1.6 % of Atheists. Just the other day a Massachusetts school board banned the term "Christmas Break" and substituted "Holiday Break." This change occurred because of a complaint by one family even though the board had received a petition with more than 4000 signatures to keep "Christmas Break!" You can't make this stuff up.

I certainly do not mean we should not address the needs of minorities; of course we should, but not at the expense of the majority. We must remember this country runs on the hard work, productivity, creativeness, risk-taking, and self-responsibility of the majority. Caring for the majority makes sense if for no other reason other than the fact that there are more of them. This is what I mean when I say certain members of our society may wish to disregard/redefine the meaning of the word MINORITY. They seem to have redefined it as :

Minority: the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number but one to be positioned for the low information voter as a large number for political advantage when possible.

So, who is this overlooked majority?

The population of the US is made up of 78% white, 78.5% Christians, 96% heterosexual, 85% fiscally sound, 91% drug free, 89 % English speakers

Sure, that group seems to have all they need and the system seems to be rigged for the white, Christian,, English speaking, financially solvent, heterosexual and that's the way it should be because they are the MAJORITY.

The Left often laments the money spent on war and declares it could be better spent at home. How about if we drastically cut the money spent on our home "wars" on poverty and drugs and pump that money back into the productive majority?

Again, the minority must be cared for, but to what degree with a finite amount of money. This is where the left and right part ways; What is the mission of government? Should it be run primarily as a business, or should it be run primarily as an adult care center?

Everyone of us has been, or will be, a some point in our lives, a minority. I'm in the "old' category. Only 14% of the US population is over 65, so each year I fade further out of anybody’s demographics. I don't expect to be catered to with advertising, movies, TV, songs, electronics, etc. In their mind I'm not worth it. Money, time and energy are best spent on the 86% of people who will use the products and services, now and in the future. I understand that, I accept it, and I hope other minorities can see more clearly and accept their place in the big picture.

I guess I'm just one of those who cling to the familiar, age old, definition of minority . Oops! Looks like I'm in another minority.

MINI MERICA

Think of this like the TV show "Lost." A plane crashed on an island with 100 people aboard; all survive. No one finds them for years .They quickly realize they will have to bring some organization to their little community if they are to make it for the long run.

The lucky 100 analyze their skills and carefully break into two distinct groups. The "Providers" and the "Administrators." The Providers provide. They hunt, make and distribute what the groups needs to survive. The Administrators administer. They take over the work the Providers are too busy providing to do. They cut walking paths between various groupings, they carry messages and knowledge from one group of Providers to another, and they oversee security for the groups.

Since the Administrators produce nothing, they have nothing. In order for the Providers to be able to do what they do best, they pay a portion of their gains to the Administrators for the Administrator's services. They usually pay in Elk burgers--a percentage of their hunt. Those successful hunters pay more than those who are unskilled or down right lazy. As it works out about 43% of the Providers, while absorbing the bulk of the Administrators time and burgers, pay no burgers at all.

The unproductive Administrators, because no one ever set a limit on their assisting in an unproductive capacity, have been "serving" the Providers for years. Over those years they have slowly chipped away at what should be the exclusive rights of the productive Providers. Before long the unproductive Administrators were telling the productive Providers where and when they could hunt, and what weapons they could use. They also raised the burger count required from the productive Providers to give to the unproductive Administrators so the unproductive Administrators, after they have taken their share, could give the remainder to the non productive Providers.

Since there were so many non productive Providers now able to sit around all day telling stories, making babies and eating the rewards of others' hard work, the unproductive Administrators found it necessary to redistribute the burgers and require more from the 10% of productive Providers who the unproductive Administrators determined were living high off the Elk, as it were. The productive Providers then began to wonder why they were busting their humps when they could just tell stories and do that baby making thing, and be almost as well off?

The unproductive Administrators were able to get away with this seeming unfair distribution because the non productive Providers very much related to the unproductive Administrators (who also lived off the the 57% of the productive Providers) and therefore backed every activity the unproductive Administrators proposed.

Since the 100 survivors followed the general religious population in the US, almost 80 were Christians, 2 were Jews, 2 were Atheist, 2 were Agnostic, 1 was Muslim and 13 had no religious ties at all. Our Muslim friend, we can call him Hussein, was devout and chose to follow Mohammed's teaching to the letter, so he began beheading Christians. There were plenty Christians and nobody was looking out for them anyway. The unproductive Administrators, having no real skills in anything, were not sure what to do. All they knew is they didn't want to seem heavy handed on such a minority, so they sent him a strongly worded letter asking him not to do it again. He did--down to 77 Christians.

The remaining 77 Christians wanted to put crosses by their shacks but the 2 Atheists complained-- so much for the crosses.

Out of the 97 remaining survivors, 4 were proud members of the LGBT community. The unproductive Administrators, again scared to death of offending ANY minority, gave the 4 pretty much anything they wanted.

There were also 3 people who when providing very menial help to the productive Providers after the hunt (burying the entrails, etc.), were paid one burger per hour. They complained, and since they were also a minority, (and who seems to have more power than a minority), the unproductive Administrators required the productive Providers give them 3 burgers per hour whether they were worth it or not. This was not too big of a deal for the productive Providers because they just developed an automated digging tool and fired all the low-skilled help and didn't have to hire anyone new. This didn't bother the fired workers either because the unproductive Administrators gave them 1 1/2 burgers (taken by law from the few remaining productive Providers) for 99 weeks.

You would really have to wonder how a society organized and performing like this could possibly survive--so do I.

THE REALITIES OF RACISM

                            Why we vehemently defend President Obama

He is subjected to a level of disrespect, treachery, betrayal and sabotage from within that no other president has ever experienced. Still he succeeds and his success makes American lives better.

Facebook posting

Buried in this Liberal posting I found on Facebook is the underlying, and quickly becoming very annoying, theme of racism. These mid-term elections have found the candidates, most worried about losing one of the cushiest jobs in America, are back to pulling the race card out of a well worn deck. Let's just take a trip back in time, short time, to see if , "no other president has ever experienced," the Obama level of disrespect.

There was so much disrespect for President Bush, they came up with a name for it, the "Bush Derangement Syndrome". It began with the left's belief that Bush was an illegitimate president, stemming from the bitterly contested results of the 2000 election. Inauguration Day protesters wielded "Hail to the Thief" signs and chanted "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Bush and Cheney go away!" "We want Bush out of D.C." and, "You're not our president."

Michael Moore's 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11 mixed making fun of Bush with a poop load of conspiracy theories concerning the Bush family's ties to the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family. In 2006, the movie Death of a President, a mockumentary of sorts, purported to follow the investigation of the unsolved assassination of George W. Bush. (Get that, a movie about the assassination of a sitting president. Try that today.) The Liberal entertainment industry loved any Bush bashing and gave Death of a President the International Critics Prize at the Toronto Film Festival, and Moore's film the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

The intellectual elite didn't want to miss getting a piece of Bush. The 2005 winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, British playwright Harold Pinter,  wrote, "The Bush administration is the most dangerous force that has ever existed. It is more dangerous than Nazi Germany because of the range and depth of its activities and intentions worldwide." When Nobel Peace Prize Winner Betty Williams of Northern Ireland, in the keynote speech at a Peace Conference in Dallas, said, "Right now, I could kill George Bush, no problem. No, I don't mean that. I mean—how could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would LOVE to be able to do that." That, my friends , was the PEACE prize winner.

While these intellectually superior folks were vomiting this hatred, the common folks were at anti-Bush rallies with signs that read : "Bush = Satan," "Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush," "Hang Bush for War Crimes," "End the Illegal Occupation in the White House," "Bush is the Disease, Death is the Cure," "Bush is the only Dope worth Shooting," "Death to Extremist Christian Terrorist Pig Bush," and "Kill Terrorists, Bomb Their House, Kill Bush, Bomb His F---in House." While of course calling him little endearing names such as: Shrub, Bushie, and Junior, while comparing the president to Hitler and calling for his impeachment ,

Not to be left out some "local" voices were also heard from. " MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann called Bush a fascist on air, while Moveon.org conducted an online advertising contest where two contributors offered Bush = Hitler comparisons. Harry Belafonte traveled to Venezuela and called President Bush the".. greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world.." Then there was anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan who compared President Bush with bin Laden. Lest we forget the Dixie Chicks in London saying they were ashamed that President Bush was from Texas.

Wrapping up the " disrespect, treachery, betrayal and sabotage" Bush experienced, he was also blamed by the extreme left as having caused Hurricane Katrina and being responsible for 9/11. All the while President Bush was the subject of comedian's "dumb" jokes even though he had degrees from Harvard and Yale and was a trained fighter pilot.

All of this I think we could safely call "disrespect," and President George W. Bush was, and still is, WHITE!

Of course there are some people who do not like the President because he is black. I'm also sure there are some people who didn't like Bush because he's white. Those are outliers. I sometimes feel bad for myself because when somebody doesn't like who I am, what I do, or what I say, as a while male I have nothing to blame it on. (I am now aging myself into a minority, and that will take the pressure off some what.)

Let's look at some obvious race facts:

In 2008 Barack Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976. A remarkable 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites. What aspect of racism is that?

If anyone says racism swirls around Obama, I will agree, but it's the kind I'm sure he counted on. Consider that 93% of   African-American voted for Obama the second term, down 2 percentage points from 2008, with 96 percent of black women supporting him. Now, that's racism. 

The Liberal who posted the words at the top of this post, when confronted with a fact or two said basically it didn't matter because she voted with her heart. I think voting with one's heart is good when voting for American Idol, but when you are voting for the leader of the free world, maybe a fact or two should be considered. Liberals lead with emotion. Having a black president, even with limited experience and a sketchy past, feels good, and being consistent with the times, if it feels good, let's do it.

Please Liberals, stop calling racism at every Obama criticism. He has been disrespected no more than every other president. Let's face it, about half the people in the United States at any one time will not have their president in power. The current president happens to have a built in excuse generator, but all of the Conservatives I know don't care if President Obama is black, white or orange. We sincerely believe he is a poor leader and his policies are detrimental to America. That's it.

I contend Barack Obama won the presidency, not in spite of being black, but because he is black. Maybe Liberals should ease off, racism may not be their enemy.

DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS

I have been told the three things you should be very careful in discussing with anyone are politics, sex and religion. In previous Blogs we have discussed politics at length, touched on sex, and now I'm about to step on the third rail. Let's talk religion.

In politics, the left is 100% sure they are correct with 1/2 the facts. The right thinks they are 100% correct with the other 1/2 of the facts. In sex only the women have the facts. In religion the Believers and the Atheist think they are each 100% correct with no facts.

Let's take a look at the three major categories of religious belief:

Believer.

A believer sees the existence of God everywhere and needs no science to confirm his belief.

Believers can be divided into two categories: those who believe in a personal God, a God who can be talked to and will answer back. An example of God as a personal God would be the Jewish grandmother who was watching her only grandchild playing on the beach when a giant wave came and took him out to sea. Grandma pleaded, "Please God, save my only grandson. I beg of you bring him back." And a big wave came and washes him back onto the beach, good as new. Grandma looks up to heaven and says, "Pardon me, but he had a hat!"

The second category of Believer is a Deist. Deist believe in an impersonal God, an energy, a force of nature, but not a good conversationalist. Some well-known Deists were: George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Paine and Thomas Payne.

Agnostic

An Agnostic is a person who thinks that God's existence cannot be proven on the basis of current evidence, but who doesn't deny the possibility that God exist. Believers and Atheists are often viewed as unenlightened by agnostics’ because of their blind following of a supreme being which may or may not exist. Blind following of popular religions is viewed as an easy out for people who chose not to think for themselves.  An agnostic knows that just because there is no physical proof of the existence of a higher being, it does not automatically mean that one does not exist. So to be safe Agnostics would be best to follow the tenets of what's known as Pascal's Wager, named after the French philosopher Blaise Pascal. He figured if we live our life as if there is a God and at the end we find out there isn't, nothing lost (except possibly a more "unrestrained" life). If we bet there isn't a God, and we are wrong, we're in the crapper for eternity. (My words, not Pascal's)..

Atheist

An Atheist views the case against the evidence of God as "settled science." If God can't be proven, God doesn't exist. (That brings up the question, if God doesn't believe in Atheists, do Atheists really exist?) Atheists do not wish to be defined as having a disbelief in gods, but having a lack of belief (subtle but a difference none the less). Maybe Atheists are not as far from Believers as we think, they have only one fewer God than the Believers.

Since definitive proof for or against the existence of God does not exist what separates the three categories is simply a matter of faith or no faith. I say "simply," but almost a billion people have been killed in religious wars just since we have been counting. Turn on the news and you can watch that number rise each day

Think about this. How much of the religious' rivalry we have had and have today would be greatly reduced if we could separate God from religion? How much more accepted would God be to non believers if He were separated from his groupies?

This brings me to an important question in any discussion of religion. Do you believe in God? Not the God as He has been fleshed out by the various religions, but the concept of "God." I heard a man on the radio once asked if he was "happy." The man said he was, once he changed his definition of happiness. Any Agnostics or Atheists reading this, could you believe in God if you changed your definition? If you can't accept a personal God, could you see yourself as a Deist?

It would appear creation of the universe is a main sticking point between Believers and Atheists. Believers believe that in the beginning there was an ultimate being which caused everything, whereas

Atheists believe in the beginning there was nothing--which exploded and expanded to what we have today. Both defy logic and what the answer really is is not even available on Google. If God created the universe, what created God? Here is a classic story which I am sure will clear everything up.

WILLIAM JAMES: "The sun is the center of the solar system with the earth rotating around it."
LITTLE OLD LADY: "Wrong theory. I have a better theory."
WILLIAM JAMES: "And what is that?"
LITTLE OLD LADY: "That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle,"
WILLIAM JAMES: "If your theory is correct, madam, "what does this turtle stand on?"
LITTLE OLD LADY:" The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle."
WILLIAM JAMES: Thinking he had her now said, "But what does this second turtle stand on?"
LITTLE OLD LADY: "Mr. James---it's turtles all the way down."

Did God indeed create the world out of nothing? One day it wasn't and seven days later, there we were? If He was able to create the earth out of nothing, why did He need to take a man's rib to create Eve? I don't mind that He did, but why did he have to take the one that holds in our stomach? (If one takes the words in the bible literally every thinking person would be an Atheist. If people were to take the words in the bible by their meaning, every thinking person would be a Believer.) Or, was the universe not created by God, it "always was and always will be?" Is there really turtles all the way down?"

Back again to faith: Faith gives Believers a strong belief in God absent any proof. Atheists have a strong lack of belief in God absent any proof. With just a small tweaking in the definition of God, could Atheism be the Atheist "God?"

Bob wins the Powerball jackpot. He agrees to give a million dollars to charity if he can go to Yankee stadium and pitch to Alex Rodriguez. He bets another million that he can strike out A-Rod with three pitches. Joe Girardi, the Yankees manger, takes that bet. Bob throws pitch one, A-Rod puts it over the center field fence. Pitch two, A-Rod puts over the right field fence. Pitch three, over the left field fence. Bob walks slowly back to Girardi and says, "I don't think that's A-Rod."

Are we walking around as confident as Bob when it comes to our own relationship with a God or a no God? We all view our world in ways that make sense to us, but there is that slight possibility we may be wrong. Without solid, human-like proof regarding a God's existence it would seem that all but Agnostics are delusional, but if our delusions are not harmful to us or anyone else maybe we should all be satisfied living with our own illusions and for God or no God's sake let's all stop judging others.

NFL REGULATION FOOTBALL (reprint)

This article also appeared in Chicken Soup For The Sports Fan's Soul. (2000)

The year was 1964. The place was Chicago. A man I worked with had acquired a couple of special, all-leather, NFL-regulation footballs, inscribed -- 1963 Chicago Bears, and was selling them at a good price.

My first son was on the way. (This was in pre-ultrasound days, but I figured we had at least a 50/50 chance it would be a son. It was a chance I was willing to take.) I bought the football. I had my son's "coming home from the hospital" gift -- an all-leather, NFL-regulation football, inscribed -- 1963 Chicago Bears. That was something special.

Several years later, young Tom (we were not too creative in the name department) was rummaging around in the garage as only a five year old can rummage when he came across the special, all-leather, NFL-regulation football, inscribed -- 1963 Chicago Bears. He asked if he could play with it.

With as much logic as I felt he could understand, I explained to him that he was still a bit too young to play carefully with such a special football. We had the same conversation several more times in the next few months, and soon the requests faded away.

The next fall, after watching a football game on television, Tom asked, "Dad, remember that football you have in the garage? Can I use it to play with the guys now?"

Eyes rolling up in my head, I replied, "Tom, you don't understand; you just don't go out and casually throw around an all-leather, NFL-regulation football, inscribed -- 1963 Chicago Bears. I told you before; it's special."

Eventually Tom stopped asking altogether, but he did remember. A few years later he told his younger brother, Dave, about the all-leather, NFL-regulation football, inscribed -- 1963 Chicago Bears that was special and kept somewhere in the garage. Dave came to me one day asking if he could take that special football and throw it around. It seemed like I'd been through this before, but I patiently explained, once again, that you don't just go out for no reason and throw around an all-leather, NFL-regulation football, inscribed -- 1963 Chicago Bears.

So Soon Dave, too, stopped asking.

A couple of months ago I was in the garage looking for some WD-40 (which, with the aid of a rubber hammer, I use to fix about everything I choose to fix), when I noticed a large box that had "coveralls" written across it. I couldn't remember bringing along any coveralls when we moved from Chicago to Albuquerque, so I opened the box. There, long forgotten, was the all-leather, NFL-regulation football, inscribed -- 1963 Chicago Bears.

It wasn't special anymore. It wasn't special at all.

I stood alone in the garage. The boys had long since moved away from home, and suddenly I realized the football had never been so special after all. Children playing with it when it was their time to play would have made it special. I had blown those precious, present moments that can never be reclaimed, and I had saved a hunk of leather filled with stale air. For what?

I took the football across the street and gave it to a family with young children. A couple of hours later I looked out the window. They were throwing, catching, kicking and letting skid across the cement my all-leather, NFL-regulation football, inscribed — 1963 Chicago Bears. 

Now it was special!

You may not have a football stashed away in a coverall box, but do you have dishes that are too good to use, furniture that's too expensive to sit on, clothes and aged bottles of wine for that special occasion that never comes? Are you "doing more   Are you "doing more with less," "doing better faster," and "sticking twelve hours of work in a ten hour bag," to get more "things," while at the same time not using, or even appreciating, the "things" you do have? Are you letting the one-of-a-kind, never-to-be-repeated moments — the footballs in life — get away?

Lesson: If you save something long enough, you will lose it.

HARD COME, EASY GO

I just lost another Liberal "friend" from Facebook.

This is the third Facebook friend who has unfriended me after they have brought up a political subject and I responded to it. Bill Buckley said something which might be the answer as to why that's happening. He said, Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. I guess the three women, they were all women, posted their political beliefs expecting everybody will, of course, agree with them, and when that small voice from the back of the room disagrees, they silence it in the only way they know how-- DELETE.

I think the best way to demonstrate what I mean is to reprint the last Facebook communications that got me fired.

The Liberal lady ( LL) posted a Daily Kos message. (This is also something I have noticed, when these folks post something it is usually something from a Progressive web page. Rarely, if ever, is it their own words. I wonder why that is?) This particular blurb was complaining about Alice Walton being worth 21 billion and Walmart employees having to rely on the taxpayers to kick in for her employees' food stamps because of the alleged low wages paid by Walmart. Shouldn't Alice spread some of her money around to the employees?

Here is the Facebook postings. ( LL Liberal lady, CM Conservative man--that's me)

(CM) What is the most anybody should earn?

(LL) Enough. Enough to go around. Everyone should have enough. $21 billion is more than enough. And who decides how much is enough? If we were all golden rule humans, we'd know the answer to that.

(CM) And who decides how much is "enough?

"$21 billion is more than enough." say you, LL

"I do think at a certain point you've made enough." President Obama

Apparently at least two people have a definite idea about what's "enough." Studies have shown that a person thinks another person is "rich" if they have twice their net worth. "Enough" is very relative.

I doubt Alice Walton put her $21 billion in CDs and is sitting around eating Bon Bons watching it grow. Through charitable organizations and job creation, the Walton family has done more for the good of other folks than 99% of the world's population. The best way to help a poor person is to not be one of them.

Also, where do we get the idea that the government "asks" things of the rich. The government "makes" the productive of society give up their money and the government will put it where the government thinks it should go. How's that working?

LL) If the Waltons were so charitable, they'd pay their employees a living wage with a few benefits thrown in so that their employees wouldn't have to survive on food stamps. Give me a break. Not to mention how many small businesses they have put out of business. and in answer to your second remark, the government is controlled by the rich. Don't be so naive to think that the govt. makes itself give up its money.

(CM) Democrat's "War on Walmart" really confuses me. I guess it's because the founders make a lot of money and it's a Liberal leaning to find suspect anybody making more money than they do. Let's take a look at the people the Democrats say they are FOR, i.e. the little folks, those struggling to make a buck in the evil world run by productive people.

Walmart has 2.2 million people who CHOOSE to work for it. People who choose to work for those substandard wages you say Walmart pays. Walmart has 100,000,000 customers per week CHOOSING to shop there (42% of Walmart customers earn less than $40,000 per year. These are the very folks the Left purports to champion!) You say Walmart has "put out of business" many Mom and Pops. Not true. The shoppers making their choice as to price, quality and location put the Mom and Pops out of business. Walmart's employees and shoppers are the Left's demographics. You would have it that your folks would have to pay more for everyday items just so the Walton family would not make as much money?

I know this personal responsibility and free market stuff is anti-left. but anyone who doesn’t like Walmart's business plan can simply not shop there, and they will go away, and so will the jobs and buying power of the much sought after Democratic voting block

(LL) It's too bad you make judgments and decisions based on where the "left Liberals" stand on any subject, rather than the facts of the matter, and where you get your facts from. I realize that most republicans consult a script propagated by the conservative right, that has little or nothing to do with facts or reality, only their own agenda. Also I don't give a damn who makes how much since nearly everyone makes a lot more than I do. Most intelligent people resent the very mega rich because most of them have exploited others to get there. I do not think it's ok for the corporate elite to make billions while they bitch and moan and haggle over the minimum wage. Perhaps you are a Walmart shareholder- a bit touchy and defensive of Walmart aren'tcha? By the way what is your source for all your "info"?

(CM) Source--just Google it.

"I realize that most republicans consult a script propagated by the conservative right,"
And you, on the other hand, do not get your script from the Liberal left?

" Most intelligent people resent the very mega rich because most of them have exploited others to get there."
and just where did you get that "fact?" A script from the Liberal left?

Minimum wage---this stems from a basic difference of Left and Right as to the purpose of a business. As a conservative I believe a business is in business to make a profit through selling a product or a service people are willing to pay for. They will keep their costs down in order to sell their product or service. Salaries are generally the most significant expense, so businesses will do what they can to keep that expense down by paying employees what they are worth to the business, or what they may have to pay them to get and keep good employees.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to believe a business is in business to provide their workers the wage the workers want rather than a wage commensurate with their contribution to the business bottom line. In other word a business is in business for the employees' well being. If you choose to hire a couple of people to help you in your business, and you felt you could afford to pay them $8.00 per hour for the skill level work they would do. They say that won't do, they need $20.00 per hour to live the life they want to live. What would you do? Now you may see why so many young unskilled people are unemployed today.

(I am not a share owner, but there are 3.5 billion shares of outstanding stock (Google) providing potential retirement funds for the portion of society the Liberals profess to care so much about.)

(LL) I don't follow a script. I make my own decisions and get my info from reliable sources of real news that is backed up and provable. Not opinion or misinformation like fox news. It's a waste of my time and energy to argue with you. Your info is so incorrect and predictable, its not worth the effort to try to correct you. Poof - you've been erased.

So, that leaves poor old CM with one less friend. Can you see why it is so difficult to get bipartisanship? Facts are facts, but it's how we interpret those facts that keep us apart. As I mentioned in previous Blogs, Liberalism is more emotional than rational. Conservationism is more rational than emotional. Should we feel sorry that those 22 million Walmart employees don't make more money, or do we feel pleased for them to have that good a job in these hard economic times?

It's a shame; for two reasons, first I will never get to know what those "reliable sources of real news that is backed up and provable" are so that maybe my information will not be so "incorrect and predictable" in the future. Secondly, and most importantly, it doesn't help me in my quest to understand the Liberal view. I may not agree, but I would like to understand, but it seems every time I get going, poof--I get erased!

IT'S NOT ALL BLACK AND WHITE

October 3, 1995. Los Angles, CA. O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Coleman outside of the Simpson's Brentwood, CA. condominium. The residents of Brentwood, to show their disagreement with the verdict, looted and burned down all the businesses on Brentwood's main street shrieking, "No justice, no peace."

Actually, I just made that story up. The OJ case didn't have the right "ingredients." for a riot. Ferguson MO did.

Ferguson MO is just the latest in a string of occurrences where poor blacks feel they are being preyed upon by "the man," and have no resource but to burn down what little they have. Why? Poverty is why the media will tell us that the blacks over react consistently, and negatively, as no other race has in similar situations. This would make a certain amount of twisted sense if it weren't for the fact that blacks make up about 14 % of the US population, and according to government statistics 48% of the US population is considered low income or in poverty. That means there are 34% of the rest of the population's non black, low income or in poverty and don't find it necessary to crap in their own cup and set their neighborhood back a couple of years at every seeming injustice.

I have been trying to figure out why the Ferguson fiasco, and others like it, have occurred. It was obviously not the killing of Michael Brown. Homicide is the leading cause of death among black youths 15-34 years of age. It could not have been a complete surprise to those who knew Michael, a choir boy he was not, and if he weren't killed chances are better than even he would spend a good portion of his life making license plates. I guess it's possible, even with his alleged marijuana use, he could have changed, straightened out his life and even become President, but that wouldn't be the way to bet. No, the riots couldn't be just about the killing of Michael Brown.

The riots couldn’t really be about a black person being killed by a white person because only 9% of the homicide deaths of black youth are committed by other than non blacks. It doesn’t seem to be worth burning down your neck of the woods to stop something that only happens 9 % of the time. Though the white person was a policeman, statistics show 99.9% of arrests do not end in fatalities. Why spend valuable time the rioter could have used looking for a job, to protest such an unlikely occurrence. No, the riots couldn't be a black and white thing.

So, again why the riots?

I have never met a black person I did not like. It's not the individuals; it is what the African-American race has let its leaders do to them that saddens and frustrates me. When you are a victim, your only power rests in your victimhood ("What can I do, I am a victim you know?"). The black "leaders" fully recognize that, and those leaers have made their livelihoods on insuring those who have thinking as a secondary skill believe there is very little blacks can do as long as the white establishment continues to be the "Masters of the Plantation."

I believe that riots occur in places like Ferguson not because of what actually happen, nor the skin colors of the participants, but because the blacks, as a race, feel they have lost control of their lives. They have no power. Their overlords can just come in and can even kill them with impunity. This is enough reason to lash back.

Which is just what the race-baiting "leaders" want. Unfortunately they are not the only ones who want this outcome. The "victims" are also wallowing in their victim status. If a person were to be able to examine the motives of those non Fergustonion blacks who came to Ferguson to loot and riot, you would find folks who recognize the power of victimhood and have made a life-style out of practicing "poor me."

An example of what I mean about the black leaders: Jessie Jackson was on TV with Chris Wallace and Jackson referred to the shooting as an "execution." (If the Rev. wanted to see an execution, he should have watched ISIS cutting off the head of James Foley.) Jackson then, in the face of known statistics, said white police killing black youths was a "pattern." Pattern? 91% of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks and .1% of all police encounters end in a fatality, and not all of those fatalities are a black fatality. The word "pattern" helps the reverend solidify the victim mentality and his own livelihood.

I just finished reading a column by black liberal columnist Eugene Robinson in which he was bemoaning the life of young black men and how policemen always pick on them and not white youth in the same situation. If blacks keep reading that BS day in and day out written by people who are supposed to have their readers' best interest at heart, like brain washed prisoners of war the blacks are going to believe it. Then when one of their fellow victims is killed by the "oppressor," their response, through fear alone, is bound to be excessive.

Blacks are constantly being jacked around. Their leaders are telling them every bad thing that happens to them is somebody else's fault, and the government is saying, "Don't you worry, you have obstacles to overcome, so we will take care of you." Where do blacks go and who do they go to to get back their self-esteem?

If only Ferguson could act as a catalyst for the many blacks not under the spell of this race rotting social system to rise up and find a leader that will give back African-Americas their pride and dignity by emphasizing, among other things, education and family. Blacks have a high school graduation rate of 69% vs. 86% for whites, which creates their unemployment rate of 11.4 % vs. 5.3% for whites. The family is where young men and women get their values and morals, and 55% percent of black children are raised in one-parent households vs. 21 % for whites. If the African -American community does not pull itself up buy its own boot straps, I fear we will forever lose the significant potential of much of our African-American population.

Events like those in Ferguson and other like it seem to me to be so bizarre. I mean destroying your own neighborhood even before you have the facts isn't logical, but it happens often, why? In an attempt to peel the skin from this complicated onion, this is my conclusion. Riots after police shootings do not occur because of the death; riots do not occur because of the color of the folks involved; they do not occur solely because those involved are poor. Riots occur because the people involved feel disrespected. When you are adults and treated as children by your leaders and by your government you tend to react like children and throw your toys all around your room.

The Liberal approach of giving to the poor while requiring nothing in return has insured this segment of our society will be forever takers, not givers. This social philosophy has robbed the poor in the US of their dignity. The folks in Brentwood didn't have to riot, not because they have money, but because they have pride and dignity. They have been given and have taken the opportunity to be in control of their own lives, to be adults. Hopefully in the years to come all of our citizens will have that opportunity.

HEADS OR HEARTS?

Liberals are emotional. Conservatives are logical.

Now, that I have your attention, and before the Liberals hit "delete," let me explain what I mean.

This is not meant to be bad or good for either side, but every time I say that to Liberals, I am met with Herculean resistance. I'm not really sure why.

What I mean is this. Every person is made up of logic and emotion, and it's usually not a 50/50 division. If people are made up of logic and emotion then it would only stand to reason that the society they comprise would also have an emotional and logical makeup. When the society leans emotional we have Democrats elected. When rational, Republicans get the nod.

The emotional side of Liberals see the world the way they would like it to be, and they work to make it that way. Very laudable! When Liberals get frustrated, it's because the world will never be the way they want it to be. The rational side of Conservatives see the world the way it is, and always was, and they try to work within that unfortunate reality. When Conservatives get frustrated, it's because the world will always remain the way it is.

In my quest to understand why people don't believe what I believe, I come up against this difference between emotional and rational world view on a daily basis. Today it's the Ferguson, MO. shooting.

As soon as I heard that a white policeman shot a black teenager, I immediately knew the Liberals would come out against the police and the Conservatives against the looters/rioters/protesters without either side having the slightest idea of what actually happened.

The emotional members among us see this young boy, Michael, (like the Archangel), walking home with his good buddies, Richie and the Beaver, sharing a bag of Skittles talking about the latest cat YouTube video when a lily white policeman roared up next to him, tried to pull him into the police car for no obvious reason. Michael is very scared, he jumps back, throws his hands in the air and begs for mercy from "the man." The policeman empties his weapon into Michael’s young body.

The rational side sees a policeman getting a call about some untoward activity going on. He sees a group of young black males closely matching the description he was given, or maybe they were just "out of context" in the neighborhood. He attempted to detain Michael in the way he was taught in the police academy. Logic says that something happened in those few minutes that put the policeman in fear for his safety. Not knowing that this 6'4" 250 pound plus person was "only 18," and if Michael gave any indication he was going for the officer's gun, the officer fired. He fired not to "shoot the gun out of his hands" or to wound him in the leg but to do as he was taught, to kill someone who he believed wanted to kill him. The policeman reacted so he could go home to his family that evening.

Somewhere in there is the truth. There are only two people who really know the truth, and one of them is dead. So, without the truth we go to our basic fall back positions. Liberals line up behind the looters/rioters/protesters, and the Conservatives behind the police.

You may still not believe my characterizing left and right as emotional and rational, but for kicks, try it out on what is going on around in the US today. Immigration--poor children from poor countries, they deserve happiness and safety. Yes, but they cost money and we're on our way to $20T debt, and we have no infrastructure to care for them. Minimum wage --people deserve to make a living wage off of their work. Yes, but the money, over and above what they are worth to the business, has to come from somewhere. It is not logical to take money from people who have earned it and give it to those who have not because it "feels right."

We have to find a way to open our minds to both the emotional and rational sides of our nature, and it's the government's job to meld the two for society as a whole. During past administrations I’ve heard stories of the President getting a jug of Jack Daniels, a box of Cubans, and in a smokey backroom confabulating with leaders of Congress to get things done, but logic tell this Conservative that ain't going to happen for at least the next couple of years.

THE BUSINESS OF A BUSINESS

I think I talked about this before, but it hit me again at how surprised I am that not all people think as I do. After all, my conclusions are derived by careful thought, intense research, and good old common sense.

What got me thinking this time was the Tony Dungy statement made a couple of weeks ago regarding the drafting of Michael Sam, who would be the first openly gay player in the NFL. To paraphrase what Dungy, a former  Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Indianapolis Colts and   coach, said: he said he would be concerned about drafting Sam only because of the distraction to the team that media coverage of Sam's attempt to make the roster would create.

Coach Dungy had no problem with Michael Sam being drafted or playing in the NFL. He merely said he would not want the distraction. That sounded perfectly logical to me. A coach is trying to manage a team to the championship, which is the job coaches are hired to do, and the job his customers (fans) expect him to do. Dungy simply felt the distraction caused by Sam, a 7th round draft pick whose chance of making the team was slim at best, would only interfere with a coach successfully doing his job.

Again, sounded logical to me and sounded like a good business decision, but the Left attacked him like he called for the beheading of every gay over 12 years old.

What was the difference between my Conservative view of the situation and the view of many Liberals? Am I a homophobe because I didn't jump on the "String up Dungy" bandwagon? I know I'm not, but why do I think the way I think?

It's all in the definition....

Conservative definition of a business: "The activity of making, buying, or selling goods or providing services in exchange for money." A person or group gets an idea of a product or a service they can provide that will be needed or wanted by another who will pay money for that good or service. The owner will design his or her business and all of its parts (equipment, employees, finances) in a way that will cost the least to produce the good or service so that he /she can sell more than the competitor.

Liberal definition of a business: " A person or group gets an idea of a product or a service they can provide that will be needed or wanted by another, who will pay money for that good or service. The owner will design his or her business and all of its parts (equipment, employees, finances) in a way that will provide the employees with a wage that will allow the employee to live a middle class life regardless of the employee's skill level or his/her contribution to the business. In other words, Liberals tend to think of a business as an incubator for social justice.

This is why, I believe, Conservatives and Liberals disagree on a government-mandated minimum wage. Should a business pay workers what the workers want from the business, or pay the workers what they are worth to the business?

It is also why the "Dungy disagreement" occurred. A coach is running a business. The introduction of an employee (Sam) that would undoubtedly interject a distraction thus impeding the coach's ability to provide his "customers" with the best product for the cost, is to be considered very carefully. Should a coach concentrate on winning more games or making a social statement?

This, I guess, is why all people don't think the way I do. We often times have a different core definition of the subject. If I believe the main objective of a business is to make a profit through concentration on the customer, and a Liberal friend sees the business as a way to implement social justice through concentration on the employee, we may have to agree to disagree.

There is a lot of that going around.........at least the disagreeing part.

CAN'T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG? NO.

As a Conservative I do not believe the Liberals are "wrong." They are doing what they believe is necessary and correct to create the society they wish to create. I, and other Conservatives, just believe that what Liberals wish to create (a fundamental transformation) is wrong for the country and in direct opposition to the society (envisioned by the Founding Fathers) which the Conservatives wish to preserve. So, it would only make sense that the two sides would fight like two cats in a sack.

Let's take a look at, in general, Liberals and Conservatives views:

Liberals are generally described as being open to new experiences, celebrating diversity and questioning authority. They speak for the weak and oppressed and want change and justice even at the risk of chaos. Liberals tend to view life more illogically, more “gray’ and more spontaneous. They challenge existing norms and values and local customs and generally look for ways to change the current state of society. Liberals tend to believe in an expansive government and with commensurate tax rates needed to fund government welfare programs and believe in a large “commons.”

Conservatives tend to view life more rationally, more black and white, more this is the way thing are and should be. They are more comfortable with safety and dependability. Conservatives speak for institutions and traditions. They defend existing norms, values and local customs, and generally wish to preserve the current state of society. They believe other societies would benefit from our values. Conservatives believe a limited government must "live within its means," believe in a balanced budget and that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored, therefore oppose excessive government debt.

Pretty divergent views! So how do we then come to a common ground so we can move forward? Both sides think the other side doesn't compromise. I think what they mean to say is that the other side won't do things "my" way, therefore they are not willing to compromise. "I agree to do what you want if you will have your 5-year-old son run across the Interstate 10 times at rush hour." You say, "No, of course, I won't have him do that!" "OK, I'll compromise; have him run across only 5 times." The stakes are just too big and the differences too fundamental for any substantial political compromises. Both parities are, pardon the cliche but I happen to believe it, are fighting for the soul of the country.

Why does it seem the left/right divide is deeper and wider now than any other point in our life time? I believe it starts at the top. At the top we have a very unusual situation. We have as a leader, someone who, to the best of my knowledge, has not, in his formative years, lead the life of a typical "American" child. (Attending state fairs, sitting on the side lines of the Memorial Day parade waving a little flag, saying the morning Pledge of Allegiance before school, singing the Star Spangled Banner before a football game, watching Andy Griffith, Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet on TV) Those are the years where a child becomes "imprinted" by the American experiences that would lead the typical American child to share the values and morals of other previous Presidents, and most of the inhabitants of the USA.

If I had spent my childhood in places like Kenya and Indonesia, came from a broken home, with Communists as parents and adult role models, experienced Islam as a prominent religion, spent my time as a young man in a schooling and social setting where the US was seen as just a part of the global scene, no better or worse than any other plot of land in the world of global sameness, and my young manhood was spent with anti-American extremists, I guess my world view would be more like the President's.

I know there are those who agree with the President that we should not see the US as exceptional, and I understand that, but what kind of a motivational speech would a football coach give if he told his team they were no better, and in some ways worse, than the team they were playing? Shouldn't our head honcho be our head cheerleader? I do not believe President Obama could ever give an inspirational speech to jack up the country like Ronald Reagan could. Not that President Obama isn't a fine orator, he is, he just doesn't feel it. Not his fault, he just doesn't have it to feel.

Considering that a person is a sum total of his or her experiences and Barack Obama didn't share the experiences of (wild guess) 90% of the population, it is no wonder he governs the way he does. Again as I said in the beginning, he is not "wrong" in the attempt to impose his beliefs. What he does is designed to drive America to a whole different place--from Leave it to Beaver to Two and a Half Men.

As a Conservative viewing the actions (not the rhetoric) of the President and taking him at his word that he wants to fundamentally transform the county, which would mean to make it different at its core than it is. I would assume he would want to make it like he and his life's influencers want it to be. I don't believe they are shooting for a stronger more influential USA. Possibility just the opposite.

I say that because of their actions. Is accumulating, and adding to, an almost unsustainable debt making the country stronger or weaker? Is changing the core construct of a strong society, the traditional family, making the country stronger or weaker? Is forcing our businesses to pay workers what the workers want rather than what they are worth, making the country stronger or weaker? Is passing laws that make it harder for the good guys to have guns while doing nothing to prevent the bad guys from "carrying", making the country stronger or weaker? Is curtailing the hometown production of the world's main energy source thus freeing us from dependence, making the country stronger or weaker? Does allowing almost unfettered access to our country by unskilled workers, thus adding "takers" not "givers" to our population , making the country stronger or weaker?​

Our President's view of what part America should play in the world, how Americans should relate to each other and what should be our relationship with our government are, in most cases, diametrically opposed to the Conservative philosophy. This is why Rush Limbaugh said, (and was much misunderstood and maligned), "I hope he fails." Rush did not want the US to fail, but it was said with the sincere belief that if the philosophy of a person with Barack Obama's background and subsequent political beliefs succeeded and ever got to be the law of the land, the US, as we have known it for 238 years, is lost. If you reread the conservative philosophy above you will see why, for a Conservative, defeating President Obama's particular brand of Liberalism is worth the fight.

-