DOG GONE

The following is a reprint of a posting originally printed in my Second Mouse blog.

http://www.lodestarlabs.blogspot.com/ 

Shadow ran away.

We only had the two-year-old Pit Bull/lab mix for four months but in that short time she showed us every vulnerable section of our fence. She's a runner, and when her legs get going, her ears close up, so calling her back when she gets a head of steam is a waste of precious breath.

Jean was hiking in the mountains a couple miles from the house. Considering her bent for bolting, she is kept on a leash (Shadow not Jean). Jean put the leash under her foot to fix her (Jean's not Shadow's) headgear. Leash under Jean's foot -- no match for Shadow, she (Shadow not Jean) was gone.

Emotions are funny at a time like that. Before Shadow ran away, I was feeling OK. When she was gone, I was feeling less than OK. She found her way home 24 hours later and I felt better than OK. It felt real good just to have her back! Why didn't I feel that good when she was here before she ran away?

If on Monday afternoon what you value most on this earth was taken from you and returned on Wednesday, how would you feel on Wednesday? Why didn't you feel that good Monday morning? You had what you most valued then.

Why is it so ingrained in human nature that we need to lose something in order to appreciate it? You have a life full of precious people, exciting events and priceless possessions. While we have them, recognize them, count them and value them -- right now, before they're gone, because they will go.

Tomorrow's a crap shoot; enjoy today.

BANG, BANG, BAN

Here we go again. Another mass shooting, another left/right argument over gun control or as the left is now calling gun "safety." This is confusing; I just got used to feeling at fault for the ravages of global warming. Now it's known as climate change, and good old fashioned illegal aliens are now referred to as undocumented immigrants. What exactly is a poor conservative to feel guilty about, and responsible for, if they keep changing the words?

Back to guns.

Second Amendment:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now that sounds simple enough. How can one sentence create so much disharmony?

A Militia is defined as:

A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

with a couple of sub-definitions:

-a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.

-all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service

People are defined as:

Human beings in general or considered collectively.

with a sub-definition:

--the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.

Infringe is defined as:

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

with a sub-definition:

--act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

So, it would seem to me that what the framers were saying is that the federal government should not limit the military nor the people from having guns. A couple of more recent Supreme court decisions have backed up my rather scholarly interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

It would seem the left is rather hesitant to arm the "militia" with the biggest and baddest of war toys and will do everything in its power to limit gun access by the people. The left does not say that people can or should not have guns, they just want to throw as much administrative inconveniences at gun ownership as they can get away with. This I find interesting, when the right wants an ID card to be required to vote ( a constitutional right) the left cries voter suppression but is very willing to require considerably more paperwork to own a gun which is also a constitutional right. Are they not then making it more difficult for the poor and minorities to exercise their gun-totin' rights? Gun suppression?

But I digress.

In the US we have 319 million people 112,000 guns per 100,000 people (yes, more guns than people). We have 821.5 deaths per 100,000 per year and only 10.4 of those are gun related. We are more likely to die from Alzheimer or diarrhea than by being shot. The mass shooting fatalities per 100K is .31. Then let's throw in the fact that young children are 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than by a gun. (I will now leave some space to insert anti-gun statistics because there are enough on both sides to go around.)

The fact is guns are here to stay; there is no "expired by" date on the 300 million plus guns that now exist in the US, and new weapons are being bought in record numbers. The question is how do we work with that reality?

A segment of our society is obviously easily placated by "feel good" legislation so since politicians only response to any problem is to make legislation their go-to solution, they conclude they should make the background checks more extensive. It doesn't seem to matter that the Federal bureaucracy can't handle effectively and efficiently what we have now. Even 10 more pages of background checks would not have stopped the rash of mass shooting we have had recently, but it sounds good.

The last four presidents have averaged 16.5 mass shootings during their terms and President Obama has had 162 in seven years, and he has passed 23 gun control executive orders since Sandy Hook. We now have more gun laws now than ever before. Less types of guns are legally available to the average citizen than ever before. We also have more “gun-free zones,” zones where, by the way, most of these shootings happen. The prevalent thought is let's pass some more laws so we can all go to bed at night feeling good. Maybe not feeling any safer, but feeling good.

My personal opinion is you really have to "work" the words of the second amendment to get anything else out of it other than the people have a right to own weapons. I understand the desire to see the world the way one would like it to be, but concentrating on controlling the gun to make the world a better place is misplaced effort.

To change a habit we need to reward what we want done and/or punish what we don't want done. We reward good gun behavior by getting off the backs of good gun owners, and we reward bad gun owners by various level of punishment. The direction we seem to be going is making life more complicated for good gun owners and doing little or nothing more to punish the bad gun owner. I'm not sure how well that's going to work.

Guns are here to stay. If we just invented the first gun I'm sure we would have handled things differently but those 300 million horses are out of the barn. Guns ownership is a constitutional right, but we don't have a right to use them irresponsibly. When weapons are used irresponsibly we must significantly increase current punishment levels. I know that will be hard for the far left to accept, but that's what it looks like from the far right.

CAUSE AND NO EFFECT

Every behavior has a consequence. If we find that consequence pleasurable, we are likely to repeat that behavior. If we experience an unpleasant consequence, we are likely to avoid that behavior.

Simple human and animal nature.

Simple or natural stops when outside forces mess with nature.

Liberals seem to have in their political DNA the belief that life should be fair and equal, and if a person is a minority life should even be more fair and equal. Since life is not F and E, life must be artificially messed with.

If a woman chooses to drop out of high school, join the boyfriend of the month club, have six children all with different last names and perfect the speech and dress of the streets, those choices have consequences. Logic would dictate those consequences would not be good. But hold on, not so fast. The woman who follows Economist Walter Williams' blueprint for a successful life, "Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen," will have the opportunity to have some of her hard-earned money taken and given to Bad-Choice woman. Good-Choice woman gets to display the behavior of working with the consequence of having her money taken. Bad-Choice woman gets to practice the behavior of staying home and experiencing the consequence of being given some of Good-Choice woman's money. That's messing with life artificially.

Let's not feel too badly for Bad-Choice woman. While probably she is technically living in "poverty," it's U.S. poverty. She will most likely have a car, air conditioning, color TV with cable, DVD player, kids with XBox or PlayStation, refrigerator, oven, stove, microwave and a cell phone. All paid for by some 80 plus government programs for the poor funded by the folks who never took the easy way out. Not too bad consequences for someone who lived a life time of self-indulgent behavior.

Sure, there are those who, through bad luck, need the help of others, and they should have it, but because of the size of the federal government, the need of politicians to buy votes, and unfortunate number of the population who believe giving is helping, often actions do not generate the consequences needed to change those unproductive behaviors. I work, I get money. I don't work, I get money. Those consequences are likely to drive what behavior?

What brought the behavior/consequences thought to mind was the recent story of a South Carolina Sheriff's deputy vs a nameless 16-year-old girl (I'll call the Little Princess), which has been in the news and big on Facebook. The LP was told twice, once by her teacher and then by a school administrator, to put down her cell phone and leave the class. Apparently nobody was going to tell her what to do and all the "negations" and techniques taught in teacher school were not achieving the desired results, so the school authorities called in the next in line. Deputy Ben Fields, a decorated School Resource officer for seven years was asked to do what the teachers couldn’t, or didn't want, to do. It would seem talking was not getting the job done. The LP's behavior was to remain sitting and to refuse to follow the teacher’s directive to leave the class. Deputy Fields asked her again to leave the classroom, she again refused. At this point, he could have handed her a strongly written note or he could have given her a set of keys and ask her to lock up when she leaves after school thus avoiding any unpleasantness, but it didn't go that way. He was a resource to the teachers and he did his job. I guess Deputy Fields could have been a bit more "delicate," and for that he is paying with his job, thanks to an apparently spineless, PC-infused Sheriff Leon Lott, who will never win a Profiles in Courage award. The Deputy is fired while the teacher and administrator go about their business. The student, probably wearing a neck brace, claiming racial discrimination, will walk away with thousands of dollars in hush money.

The Little Princess's behavior--disobeying authority; consequence-- authority gets fired. What do we think will happen a few year from now when LP gets pulled over on a traffic stop, and the policeman asks for her license and registration? What has she learned from her behavior? What did everyone aware of this occurrence learn? What did the police resource officers learn?

Ask a teacher in a public school today what consequences a student would receive if he or she were to swear at the teacher. Facebook had a video posting recently of a substitute teacher in a Chicago south side high school classroom. It was beyond believable. These students were past the point of a resource officer, their "behavior" was at National Guard level. This is where our liberal educational approach causes day by day, classroom by classroom, the decline of a once powerful country. These kids are our future and because they are minorities we are afraid to provide them with the appropriate consequences to their actions. Black lives do matter and this PC BS is doing more to kill current and subsequent generations of black lives than all the guns on the streets. Time to stick PC where it belongs and provide, no impose, strict guidance and direction. If the "adults" don't provide strict consequences now on anti-social behaviors, we're looking at more and more "Cop Shoots....." headlines.

What does a person learn when he or she drops out of school and with no skills gets a job paying $15 per hour? When it is learned they suck at this thing called work they could get as much as 99 weeks of unemployment. There are about ten websites from the Department of Labor telling the unemployed how to get free money. What does a person learn about putting an effort into holding a job? If this person happens to be minority she might not even be able to be fired without a Supreme court hearing.

Do the names Michael Brown or Eric Garner mean anything to you? They died while disobeying the lawful orders of a policeman who was hired and authorized by us to keep us safe. If you haven't heard of Michael or Eric, if you haven't seen them held up by certain segments of our society as, at the least victims, and the most, heroes, you must have been in a cave on Mindanao for the last year. How about the names Jason Dunham and Ross McGinnis? Michael and Eric, for their unlawful behavior, were killed and highly publicized. Jason and Ross were also killed for the "behavior" of fighting for the United States military, were each awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, and promptly forgotten. What does a person learn about the consequence of defending or offending society?

What do we see modeled from our leaders? Do their behaviors generate the appropriate consequences? The last politician who seemed to suffer negative consequences from his actions was President Bush the Elder. "Read my lips, no new taxes." There were new taxes; he was defeated. From that point on, we have, "I did not have sex with that woman." This lie resulted in minimum political fallout but did help Bill's stud numbers. WMDs harmed George Bush's legacy but not much else. "You can keep your plan/doctor" and "Benghazi was the result of a video" were two outright lies told to the American people by President Obama and his staff. As a consequence of these lies, the President was reelected. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary hit an all-time low in trustworthiness, favorability and honesty and yet it's believed 40 plus percent of people will vote for her even if she is in jail on inauguration day. Any chance politicians will lie any less in the future? There appears to be no downside.

The riots (behaviors) in Ferguson MO. you would have thought would have received presidential condemnation (consequences) but the president said the police need more training. Does it seem that putting the pressure on the police will get the rioters to tone down their destruction?

A series of bad choices on a hookup? There is always abortion. Choose to sell drugs? Good chance you can be among the 6600 drug dealers being given an early release by the administration. How about choosing not to perform your job for religious reasons? If you are a Christian, you can be fined. If you are a Muslim you can sue and collect a settlement. This behavior/consequences thing is tricky.

As I said, there is a segment of our society that would like everything to be fair and equal. Yes, "all men are created equal," but the minute we are carried out of the hospital things start to change faster than our diapers. All the important things we know, we learned through failure. When we get to that part of our lives when somebody takes the failure away from us, we're done. When an unpleasant consequence occurs, and somebody reduces or eliminates it under the guise of helping us, we never learn the true outcome of a potentially bad behavior and we continue the destructive behavior, why not? We cannot, as a society, make everybody whole. We shouldn't even want to. We, as humans, learn from our mistakes, but we have to be allowed to make them.

'TIL THE NEXT TIME.....

As I have often said, I believe, in general, Liberals view the world as they would like it to be, and Conservatives view the world as it is. Both views are necessary to come to a problem solution that will please no one.

Our never ending discussion of gun control is a good example. The Congressional Research Service put the number of civilian firearms ownership in the United States at 310 million back in 2009, and as long as our current administration is in office the number is growing daily.

Let's look at the reality; guns are here to stay. Stop all guns manufacturing, stop the sale of all guns and we still have 310 million plus guns floating around. I can think of no law short of confiscation that will reduce that number, and getting back to reality, how well do you think confiscating 310 million guns would work?

Another element of reality is guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. In fact, many of the horrendous killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and popped the bad guy, or, hopefully, the gunman used a gun on himself. Guns are objects that can be used for good and bad. We reduce the bad, the good is also diminished.

I am asking Liberals, because I really don't know, if a Liberal president were King (notice I'm not making any snarky comment regarding our current situation) what new laws, in addition to the about 300 existing state and Federal laws, would you want implemented? Every time there is multiple shooting, that doesn’t involve black shooting whites, there is a hue and cry to provide some "common sense solutions," to "do something." What is that, "something" Liberals would like done? Seriously. While putting your thoughts together, please try to keep in mind how your solution will keep the guns out of the hands of those folks who are not into obeying laws.

Lately, I've noticed an effort by pro and con gun control folks to liken guns with anything that happens to be laying around; abortion, cars and Nazi Germany. The problem is nothing is really like anything else, but both sides are willing to try anything.

For example, I have seen the chart which states that to own a gun a person should have to do at least what's required to own a car. That would be title and tag, training, written and practical tests, health requirements, liability, renewals, and inspections. (This could be a beginning in preparing the Liberals' wish list). This comparison is, at best, a stretch considering the fact that owning a gun is a second amendment right, and nobody has a "right" to own a car (at least until Bernie Sanders becomes President). Also, if all the car equivalent requirements were placed on a gun, how does that stop the bad guys from doing bad things? All the car laws haven't stopped the multiple DUI crazies from hitting the road and anything on it. Is the car the problem, or is it the driver?

It is interesting when you consider that many on the left would like to apply all the "paperwork" possible to own a gun; a license, maybe even an owner ID to show they have met all the legal requirement for gun ownership. How does that sound to the gun control advocates? Are those requirements on your list? Since gun ownership is being tied to random actions, let's tie it to something not so random, another "right." We as citizens have the right to vote. How can the left want ID cards for one right, gun ownership, but fight fiercely for no ID card requirement for another right, the right to vote? It would seem if an ID was required to own a gun and poor people apparently cannot get ID cards, the left would be engaging in "gun suppression." The poor would be restricted from their constitutional right to own a gun. Could the left be disenfranchising the poor in their ability to protect themselves?

I'm sure more in-depth federal background checks would be high on the left's list. I have no real problem with that, conceptually. Where this is in effect they seem to have made a positive difference in keeping guns out of the hands of people with specific "problems," but here comes that old bug-a-boo reality again. As a Conservative I am concerned over the bureaucratic federal government's ability to effectively and efficiently handle what would be required to conduct background checks on the ten million new guns purchased each year. (While at the same time effectively and efficiently handling our health care.) Also, as I understand, the core reason for the 2nd amendment was to ensure the folks always had a recourse to the actions of a tyrannical government and with the requirement to interact with the government for each gun purchased, the government would have records on the location of each weapon. Far-reaching? Maybe, but I've seen things these last few years I would have also considered far-reaching.

Since I have asked the left for their ideas on curtailing gun violence, here are some of my own ideas. Guns are here to stay I'll start from that premise. I don't care if people walk around with bazookas strapped around their shoulder AS LONG AS THEY DON'T USE THEM. To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make," except for a lousy fashion statement. The gun, knife, hammer, sock-o-rocks do not kill people if they are not used, so doesn't it make more sense to control gun violence by severely punishing the misuse? Don't punish the purchase, punish the use.

As a people and as a society we get what we want. We say we want as close to zero gun violence as possible. We say we don't want guns in the hands of those who use them for ill-gotten gains. How about this-- the police stop anyone they think might be up to no good. If they have a gun in their possession, without the proper paperwork, the policeman on the spot cuts off their gun hand. How long do you think the problem of guns in the wrong hands (no pun intended) would last? Punishment would work.

Also, it seems many of the shootings are done by the shooter for notoriety. Why would we ever give deranged scumbags what they want? Don't give out names, go with "Scumbag," then hang them upside down naked from a pole in the town square for a week so people can come by and make a family outing by spitting on them.

"We can't do that, we are a nation of laws, caring and compassion. We are not savages."

OK! While I'm convinced the "hands off" and the "upside down" approach would work the best, I don't hold much hope of that approach being adopted, so let's try it this way. Let's put a full, "Stop and Frisk," on every known gang member, then extend that to every young man in high crime areas. Let's bring in the National Guard if necessary. Everyone with a gun and no paperwork gets mandatory prison time. Committing a crime with a gun tags on an additional 10 years to the sentence. Any doubt this would reduce the number of guns on the street? Any doubt why we don't do it?"

We say we want to reduce gun violence, but the reality is a very vocal segment of society does not wish to hurt anyone's feelings (read-minorities). We get what we really want, no hurt feelings in the minority communities. Of course by achieving the "want" we really want, we leave dead bodies strewn all over the landscape.

To summarize: The gun has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. So what do we do? Both Left and Right want to reduce deaths by gun. (I say reduce. Because with the loon factor in the world, it will never be eliminated.) The Left would reduce gun violence by controlling the gun itself through background checks, licensing, etc. The Right would reduce gun violence by a punishment of the gun user through mandatory sentencing for illegal gun activity. The Right doesn't like the Left's idea because it punishes the good guys. The Left doesn't like the Right's idea because it punishes the bad guys. So here we sit......Waiting for the next one.

LIFE CYCLE

We are born, we live, then we die.

The same goes for organizations. We all have a life cycle. When training organizations this was a major model I used. The Life Cycle is explained in detail in my book, From The Inside Out: How to Create and Survive a Culture of Change. There are a couple of books left on Amazon with used books starting at 14 cents. If you cannot afford that price, let me give a brief summery of the Life Cycle here for nothing.

Change, simply stated, is that something which was something is now something else. The reason it did not stay the something it was is because of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Entropy means that systems tend to break down over time. They break down to the extent that the energy needed to maintain systems exceeds the initial energy needed to start them. Entropy applies to all systems, which is why systems either grow or die. The Life Cycle model is off to the right.

Let's apply the Life Cycle to the United States government.

START UP   Thirteen states were populated with 2.5 million people infused with the passion and desire to be free from England, free from an autocratic government. They had, minimal laws were self-reliant, and they shared excitement and vision with their new country and government.

GROWTH   From a new, upstart nation we developed to the most powerful nation in the world. We found where our weaknesses were and plugged up the holes. We did things we could be very proud of and some not so much. The roles of the citizen evolved into one of being a follower of rules, regulations and an ever-increasing number of laws. We had war and peace. We grew and prospered. Our tomorrow stood a good chance of being pretty much like yesterday, and yesterday was a good day. We ate our dinners with Ozzie and Harriet, David, Ricky and the Beav and his family.

MATURITY   A complacency sets in. We accept the status quo. We accept we are the most powerful nation in the world and stop working at keeping it there and remembering how we got there. We listen more to the naysayers. We stop growing and really appreciating what we have. We begin to ........

DECLINE   We have lost our excitement and vision. Why? We now have 37 more states with 317.5 million more people than in our start-up phase. It's been 23 years since the last constitutional amendment even though we experienced very dynamic and changing times. Determining how many federal laws we have in effect is almost impossible, but it seems to be around 50,000. We have a 74,000-page income tax code, a 20,000 page Obamacare law with rapidly rising debt. Thirty-seven out of every 100 people are no longer participating in the job market. Almost half of us receive money from some government entity. We have classes of people who feel they are entitled to the bounty of other classes. We have a genuine concern over the  sustainability of Social Security and Medicare. We let everybody cross the Rio Grande who is not afraid to get their ankles wet. We have a Middle East we seem to have no idea what to do with, and they know exactly what they want to do with us. We have 3 designed separate branches of government which seem to function as one. Our longest serving "citizen legislator" John Dingell (D) served almost 60 years in the House before he retired. Some Congresspeople (against the Founders' intent) are still serving having been there 40-50 years. There is no clear delineation between the public and private sectors (Public sector telling the private sector what they must pay their employees). And, sadly, we have a two party system which, as they say, is nothing but 2 cheeks on the same butt.

What to do? What to do?

Before an organization gets so far into decline that it cannot get out it must....

RESTART We must get back the excitement and vision we had in start up. Restart is actually Start Up of a new and higher order.

While I completely disagreed with him politically I thought we might have had our restart with the election of Barack Obama, a minority with little or no experience at almost anything might just shake things up. He was certainly different. He promised to "fundamentally transform the country." Good! I believed we needed that, but what I believed we needed was a better, stronger America, not to restart by jettisoning the United States of America and replacing it with Denmark. We can see that restart doesn't always work. I believe our current restarting (Obama's "transforming") is like the corporate restart that brought us the Edsel, New Coke and the Betamax. The election of Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden would continue our trip down the yellow brick road. If Bernie Sanders is elected, we could change the name of the USA to the USD-the United States of Denmark.

Enter Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, we have 3 people in the presidential race today who have no political backgrounds, have no ties to policies currently in place and do not appear to "owe" any other politician their success. We know how difficult coming in and changing this is for a new President. Washington DC is really run by the 40 year government bureaucrats in a 6X6 cubicle in the basement, and maybe that will never change until we go into complete decline, but I really believe bringing in an outsider with proven leadership skills and a commitment to the Founders vision of America may be the best chance we have to restart the United States.

FINALLY, I HAVE RISEN TO THE BOTTOM

Today (8/30) I have turned 75 years of age and that is great because I am now very much a minority. Being in less than 3% of the population, I can now officially claim to be a victim. With my new minority status, I, like other minorities before me, feel compelled to impose my will and desires on the majority, and because I am a minority, the majority, for some bizarre reason, will feel a moral obligation to bend over backwards to my demands.

So, I believe that since there are more women than men in the later years, I should be able to marry as many women as I wish, and would expect the Supreme Court to allow that to occur in all 50 states, for no particular reason other than it's what I want. Then our new little family should be able, and even encouraged, to adopt any 50-year-old orphans looking for a home. I would expect to be able to commandeer any main street, organize, and participate in a yearly Geezer Pride Parade with participants proudly riding in wheelchairs or pushing walkers while shamelessly wearing open bathrobes, oxygen tanks and adult underwear. Anyone finding this spectacle eccentric and slightly gonzo, and who would be inclined to say so out loud, should be restrained by the police and called an ageophobe.

I believe if I have any problem supporting my new little, but old, family (which if I do, shame on the government), I should be able to get most any job I wish because of age hiring quotas (10% percent of your employees should be 75 or older) in place. Also, a company's ability to fire me regardless of how slow I am, how much I forget, or how much I never knew, should be pretty much legally eliminated. Considering my new age handicap and what I deserve for having it, if I don't choose to get a job, maybe I could using my minority quota to leap-frog over many more eligible people and get into an Ivy League university and major in Viking Studies.

Of course for me to live the life to which I have, or wish to, become accustomed, I would expect to get (I am a minority, you remember) most every job I apply for. My minimum wage should be in the $100K range. Now, I know I'm not worth that, and that this money has to come from somewhere, but I don't care. That's not my problem. I'm a victim because I am a minority, and it's the responsibility of people who have money to figure out how to get me what I want. Why? Because I want it...

As one gets older the eyes go, the reflexes are dimmed and judgment gets impaired, but those are no reasons for 75 plusers being stopped by the police in inordinate numbers while going 20 MPH under the speed limit. If this obvious harassment continues, we seniors will have to engage in a 1000 Walker March to demonstrate against being unduly targeted for traffic violations. When I was a majority and had no one but myself to blame things on, I used to think being stopped by the police was my fault, but now since I am a minority, therefore a victim, I know the real reason I'm being stopped is DWO (Driving While Old) .

I would also expect to see an elder as one of the main characters on all TV show or movies. I would also expect the police and fire departments to employ a percent of the seniors living in the community they represent. It would be a big benefit if they could pass the mental and physical criteria for the police or fire job, but if they can't, so what? Isn't it more important to placate the vocal minority than to protect the silent majority?

Lastly, since I'm running out of energy to write any more, and my government provided ghost-writer is useless, are we not sick and tired of all of the young policemen shooting the aged? Don't they realize that Old Lives Matter?

Boy! these next 25 years are going to be fun.

RESPONSIBILITY

It seems that I have had some degree of responsibility most of my adult life. Not really much more than anybody else, I guess, but since it was mine I felt it more than I'd feel somebody else's. When I worked for the telephone company the responsibility I felt was for my family. When the boys were gone from home, and I left corporate life, we started our own business and the responsibility then was to get business. After I self-retired from the speaking business and got into Lab rescue, it seemed the responsibility got more personal. I had living creatures depending on me for their very life. We also at that time, to compound the responsibility for living things, had two horses, two cats and seven dogs.

It was soon after that my folks began to show the effects of age. Being their only living child the responsibility for them became mine, and I was 1000 miles away. I handled dad’s financial matters, arranged for and sent the payment to his care giver, made the decision about mother going to the nursing home, talked to dad once or twice a day, and flew to visit them every three months. Being a long-distance care giver, I didn't have the physical involvement of their day-to-day care, but not being there intensified my mental commitment and feeling of responsibility. During this period I spent my time writing a blog, answering emails, commenting on Facebook, exercising and doing "chores" around the property. Their future was always on my mind. (How sick might they get, would their money last, etc.) My parents were my number one responsibility. I made life and death decisions for them; they really had no one else, and I was a long way away.

The last couple of years I began to feel the weight of the imagined and real responsibility for my folks and our remaining animals. I then wondered what different things I would do, how I would live my life differently with little or no responsibility. Without my folks and with minimal animals, would that boulder, lifted off my shoulder, free me up to travel, volunteer or write the great American novel?

My mother died first in the nursing home. All but one of our dogs died and dad deteriorated enough to also go to the nursing home. I arranged for his former care giver to visit him in the nursing home because he desperately needed some contact with his past life. Dad died ten months after entering the home.

There I was, no parents and only one dog and one cat to have"responsibility" for. Now is the time for the new Tom to emerge. All my thoughts and ideas of what I would do when this time came were ready to be put into play.

One year later, not only have I not "blossomed," things are actually a bit worse. How could that happen? This is one of my most profound life lessons. Responsibility was not stopping me from doing things; it was what made me do things. Responsibility was the glue that held it all together. Yes, I spent time writing a blog, answering emails, commenting on Facebook, exercising and doing "chores," but that just filled in the time between engaging in my real and very important purpose in life, caring for my folks. Without a meaningful purpose, am I destined to spend the rest of my life writing a blog, answering emails, commenting on Facebook exercising and doing "chores?"

As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."

I'll figure something out.

******************************************************************

After I finished the draft of the above article I was listening to a Podcast of Freakonomics ( based on three fun Freakonomics books) . The subject was thinking like children. Listening to this completely changed my thinking and answered the concerns I had just written about. As a child I had no real responsibility, I got up in the morning and took the day as it came. From child to senior came the responsibility portion of life. Think about this, think about how alike a 100-year-old person is to a 1-year-old child. (I'm sure I don't have to go into detail. ) I discovered the obvious, I am hanging on to a portion of my life that is gone, I need to resurrect the inner child and get up each morning and take the day as it comes. No longer am I caring for my folks, watching over animals, writing books, giving speeches to hundreds of people. The main job I may have for the day is to rearrange my sock drawer, and that's OK. Setting all the motivational stories about Colonel Sanders aside, to reach retirement age and look back at what we have left behind, to look at how the world will be different because we were in it and to accept the fact that there is a good chance we will not discover a cure for cancer, win an Oscar or start a wildly successful chicken franchise, may well be the answer to an older life well lived.

I guess my responsibility now it to get up each morning and do the hell out of what the day brings. I can do that.

BOB AND PATTY: A FABLE

His name was Sir Bob the Bombed, and he was the drunkest knight in the land.

Sir Bob was a member in good standing (and standing was not always easy for Bob) of the knights of the round table. The shape of the table is important because with Bob staggering around and bumping into furniture on a regular basis, if it had been a square table, it might have severely damaged the trunk of Bob's family tree. (This will become important later in our story.)

Falling off his horse, relieving himself in his armor, forgetting his own name and mistaking turtles for rare roast beef on a hard roll were daily occurrences for our hero.

Sir Bob was a mess.

Princess Patty the Pure, on the other hand, put the newly driven snow to shame. Be assured the vile devil alcohol never crossed her lips. Patty had not "known a man," (she didn't even know she didn't "know") nor would she say manure if she had a mouthful. Princess Patty was a lady in every sense of the word.

Helping peasants learn English as a second language, playing Mr. Potato Head with the children of the palace, and giggling over "Knock, Knock" jokes with her handmaids pretty much filled out Patty's days.

Princess Patty was class.

The Princess had only one discernible flaw; she was enchanted with that wild and crazy knight, Sir Bob. Bob, on the other hand, had only one discernible virtue; he had the hots for Patty.

Patty thought, as has been many a woman's downfall throughout time, she could change Bob. While Bob, as has been many a man's downfall throughout time, didn't think at all.

This thinking (and non thinking) led to Bob slurring the big question to Patty. Patty was delirious as was Bob, but for different reasons.

The king, anxious for some little kinglets, agreed to this odd coupling.

From here our little fairy tale begins to unravel.

In an act Patty wished to forget, and Bob could not remember, a child was conceived. Sir Bob the Bombed and Princess Patty the Pure produced wee Willie the Wise.

We have a nuclear family about to blow.

By virtue of his newly acquired status, Bob was invited to attend all of the biggest parties in the kingdom. In the beginning everybody loved Bob. Putting the lantern cover on his head always got a laugh. It got to a point where everybody was laughing at Bob -- except Patty.

Patty tried with all the force of her niceness to cover for Bob. "He's had a bad day; he's draggin' from fighting the dragons." "His horse broke down this morning; that's why he was late for his meeting with the peasants' union." "He was out in the rain and the hinges of his armor rusted, so he couldn't take Willie to the father/son games at the castle."

After years of making excuses for Bob, cleaning up after him, doing all the parenting, beating herself with a big blame stick and crying into an uneasy sleep every night, Princess Patty the Pure was a wreck.

One morning Patty woke up (alone as usual) with a startling insight - she'd had it up to the top of her bejeweled crown!

She made an appointment with the in-castle support group (Princesses Who Love Drunken Knights Too Much). Patty found out five things at her PWLDKTM meeting: 1) She was not alone. 2) She was important. 3) Bob was not in charge of her happiness. 4) Willie needed her all the more now. 5) If a change was going to be made, Bob would have to make it. 

So Patty got on with her life. Bob on the other hand still didn't get it.

Three hazy years later, on day three of a three day binge, Bob rode into the castle courtyard looking for a little excitement. Patty had long since moved to another part of the castle, and Willy was too busy building a replica of the castle in his sand box to even acknowledge someone who meant so little to him.

Bob leaned over to scoop Willy up. The sight and smell of this drunken mess terrified Willy and he screamed. The loud noise spooked Bob's horse, Wild Turkey, who reared up and came back down -- right on Willy.

Now Bob had everything he worked so hard for - nothing.

He lost the wife who once loved him and the child who once trusted him. He needed to find someone to blame -- how about the horse, the castle help, the economy, his father (Albert the Abuser), the king, the distillers of the demon rum - somebody/something/anything.

Bob wandered the kingdom for the rest of his days looking for who was responsible for his rotten, stinking life. He accused the weather, fifty farmers, plenty of peasants and a partridge in a pear tree. He still couldn't find the right something to blame.

Bob woke up one morning and found the bird singing outside his window was a vulture. He lived his final days the same way he lived his entire life - without a clue.

As Bob breathed his last drunken breath, still committed to finding who was to blame, he glanced into his armor hanging on the wall, beheld his gnarled, knotted, twisted reflection and died. Sir Bob the Bombed died never knowing he finally had found the only person on the face of the earth who was entirely responsible for Bob.

The lesson we can learn from Bob's miserable life is: When looking for someone to be responsible for your life, you need look no further than your armor.

CIRCLE THE WAGONS

As my dad reached the end of his almost 104 years of living, I watched his world get smaller and smaller. He went from a very active police chief to a man sitting in a recliner chair watching nothing but Fox News (I always admired that man), then when his eyesight failed, he would eat, sleep and listen to the Sinatra station on SiriusXM radio. The over-100 crowd fit in no demographic: no movies, TV shows or advertisements, and Sinatra was pushing the limits. The outside world was closing in.

While dad had 30 years on me, and I'm not at the end of my world, I can see it from here. Things are happening in the world today that are so foreign to the way and times I grew up in that I'm starting to price recliner chairs and subscriptions to SiriusXM.

I'm not saying that the changes today are all bad, nothing is all bad, but for a believer in the saying,"Never take down a fence until you know why it was put up," I see a lot of fence destruction going on. I risk sounding like an old man telling his grandson about walking 10 miles to school uphill both ways in a snowstorm, but I'm going to take that risk.

Back in the old days if a white woman said she is really black, if a man said, despite the obvious, he is really a woman, they would discreetly have an in-depth discussion with a professional in a white coat. While that may not have been the best way to handle the situation, I'm not sure being on the cover of national magazines and the main attraction of network and cable TV shows touting their strength and courage is the answer either, but that's the direction we choose to go in today.

On a Facebook posting from an organization named Newslinq, they had a story headlined, "He Found His 17 Year Old Daughter Sleeping Naked Next To A Boy On The Couch And This Is How He Handled It." I was pretty certain I knew how I would have to handle it but I was wrong. I guess I'm not "hip." The dad invited him to breakfast, found out he was a nice, homeless kid, invited him to stay with them and found him a job. The naked guy and the naked daughter are now married with a couple of fine kids. Boy, am I square!

The city of Santa Fe New Mexico has just passed a law making all public restrooms "Uni-Sex." Fine, I really don't have a problem with that because all the bathrooms in my house are uni-sex, but they "sold it" by saying that this was good for families, parents with different sex young children and (here is where they lost me) transgender folks. Are there so many transgender people that we would consider passing a law to insure they are not confused on which bathroom to use?

I went to an all-boys high school, 1500 boys, and I didn't know anybody who was gay. I'm sure there were some , it was just not a topic of conversation. A study today found that a cross section of people when asked how many gays they thought were in the US said somewhere between 20-25 percent. One in four, the public thought were card carrying members of the LGBT community. In truth there are, and I'm being generous, less that four percent. The media, especially movies and TV, have made up the rest. Have you seen any new TV show that does not include a main Black character, an inter-racial relationship and a couple of Gay characters? Consistent with the world most of us live in? I don't think so.

There were some things we thought were, "set in stone" and we lived our lives by them. Marriage was the word used to describe the union of a man and a woman. We had three distinct branches of government, each with its own specific responsibility. The Supreme Court ruled by law, not what they felt was the "intent" of the law. All gone.

We never got rewarded for trying, you received a trophy if you succeeded, and nothing if you didn't. The rules we lived by mirrored the world we were going into. Nobody seemed to care if my feelings were hurt because I was the first to sit down during an in-class spelling bee, or the last kid standing after a game of musical chairs, or that my body and pride were hurt because I wasn't quick enough during dodge ball.

I didn't know personally any blacks when I grew up but I know I was never afraid of them. They had families just like I did. They went to work just like my friends' families did. That was then, this is now. We all have read the unemployment, single parent, homicide statistics for Blacks, all increasing, for a large part due to the now 80 plus government programs for the poor designed to insure not succeeding gets them a trophy. I know people now who can't go to work; they would lose money if they did. Not sure that's progress.

When I first started flying on airplanes, I parked my car, went to the ticket counter, got my ticket without, I believe, showing a single piece of ID and walked on the plane. (Today if you tried that you'd be shot.) The plane, unfortunately, smelled like a very large ash tray. So, the government decided to step in and help out the helpless. They required the airlines to provide "no smoking" sections. This is the place anyone who does not believe in the "slippery slope" concept of social engineering should pay close attention. We have gone from smoking sections on planes to some places you can't even smoke in your house.

About 70 abortions were reported in the year I was born. In the year I turned 50 there were 1.6 million abortions reported. I fully understand the difference in laws and reporting procedures, but still........

We are all made up of our experience. Those of us that have lived a life of many decades have formed what for us works and the world in which we would like to see our children and grandchildren grow up. We, as humans, would believe everything if we could, but we can't, so we circle the wagons. We pick out those things that for us make sense and are intricate parts of the world as we believe it should be, we pull them inside the circle and by necessity keep the others, the Indians (oops can't say that), outside the circle.

As I have said before the problem I have as a Conservative is the Liberals are attempting to take the country Conservatives love and replace it with the country Liberals love. Why would we not fight for what we believe in? The Liberals, of course, have the reverse problem with Conservatives, but don't seem to care why the fence was put up just as long as it comes down.

Car seats, bicycle/horse riding/skate board helmets, knee pads, bottled water, medicine bottles you need a blow torch to open, lemonade stands you also can't open, and "finger" guns get kids suspended. Telling a woman how nice she look can get you fired. A teacher giving a student an "F" or, God forbid, hugging a student (or using the term "God forbid"), can put her on the bread line which she can live off of for as much as 99 weeks (worth a hug?). Holding a student back a grade. Police patrolling high crime neighborhoods rather than the ritzy part of town are accused of profiling. Thirteen year old girls regularly using the "F"word everybody but whites using the "N" word. We used to have to search for soft porn. Respect for parents, other adults, policemen, firemen, teachers, clergy is marginal at best. Just skimming the top of the changes I have seen.

Many of the changes that have occured over my life time have been for the good, others I’m not sure what they were for.

And to wrap up my attempt to make sense out of the direction of the country, I just came across a Liberal posting on Facebook from the Washington Post concerning what I truly felt was the class way those involved in the Charleston massacre handled the tragedy. The article was entitled, Black America Should Stop Forgiving White Racist.

Let's see I should be able to get a good recliner for about $600........

TILL DEATH DO US PART.

Today, June 15, 2015, is Jean's and my 52nd wedding anniversary which got me thinking about the institution of marriage and how it has changed over the years, and how it is drastically being changed now, and will be changed in the future. No, I'm not going to talk about politics This is too special of a day to drive myself that nuts, but I would like to talk about the changing world in which marriage lives.

Margaret Mead, an American cultural anthropologist, thought every woman needed

three husbands: one for youthful sex, one for security while raising children and one for joyful companionship in old age.

In 1910, the year my father was born life expectancy was 50, and the median age of first marriage was 23, giving a lifetime of marital bliss of 27 years.

In 1940 when I was born, the life expectancy was 63, and first marriages occurred at 23, giving a life time of marital bliss to be 40 years.

In 1963, Jean and I were married in our early 20s. Life expectancy today is a little short of 80, meaning we could expect, statistically speaking, a married life of 60 years.

If this keeps up, can folks in the future look forward to possibly celebrating a 100th year wedding anniversary?

As time goes by and life expectancy rises, we may be asked to be one with one person for an extremely long period of time. Let me again repeat Ms. Mead's thinking: every woman needed three husbands: one for youthful sex, one for security while raising children, and one for joyful companionship in old age.

Was Margaret correct? Is it possible to have one person meet all three of those needs, be what we need to complete all three stages of life as a couple? I say, "yes," but a lot has to fall together to make that happen.

I worry that the vast majority of TV shows and movies glamorize the Stage 1. I watch these shows where the principle character is a double agent, falling in bed with every other cast member, but at the end, she realizes the sweet talking, bed-hopping other character was the one for her, "THE END." I then try to project them into a life of raising children, going to school board meetings and soccer practice. Then I try to see them as senior citizens caring for each other when who they were is slowly slipping away. I'm not encouraged.

I was never sure why some people cried at weddings but now, seeing what it takes to make a commitment to one person over the long haul, I'm not sure why everybody is not crying. Life is tough, it's unpredictable, it's full of toe-curling happiness and for some, unfathomable sorrow and that commitment can't be held together because the partner was good in bed in their 20s.

Nature set us up that way in order to procreate, and has done, all in all, a good job, but the downside is that Mead's Stage 1 happens when many people are too immature to think deeply enough to know if he or she really even LIKES that other person? Can we communicate, can we be silent together, is he fun to be with, am I a better person because of her and when we are apart do I look forward to telling her what I experienced? Is he my best friend?

Of course, it's not expected when you're in the wild passion of a 20-year-old to project what it will be like visiting your partner in a nursing home or changing an adult diaper or finding a cooked chicken in the clothes hamper, but it is certainly time to begin to recognize the need to think things through.

As Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Life is full of forks. Do we live here or there? Do I take this job or that? Do we have children or not? If so, how many? Public or private school? All of these are "forks." It's the ability to navigate these shark-infested waters that may well determine if a couple makes it to the end. There are not many TV shows or movies that deal with Stage 2; it's not romantic or sexy, but it's the core. It's the guts of a good marriage. How a couple address these life issues, will determine if there is a Stage 3 in the future

Then, if we are lucky, comes Stage 3. The two of you alone without any of those Stage 2 questions to answer and without the kids or the job to concentrate on. With people living longer most of our married life may well be spent in Stage 3, and basically Stage 3 is like Stage 1 without quite as much sex.

So, a farmer and his wife in the 1800s had crops and kids with which to concern themselves and they only had to be concerned for 15-20 years. Today a couple both may have jobs away from the home, 2.5 kids to care for, and are tormented by world conditions through 24/7 news. Technology is changing their lives on a daily basis---and they can be together for 60 plus years! To paraphrase Liam Neeson in Taken, today’s couples will need a "particular set of skills" to make it to the end with the same partner. Our options appear to be developing long term relationship skills or switching out partners every time things get tough.

After 52 years of lesson learning, neither Jean nor I have any interest in breaking in anyone new. We're in  for the duration, and we wish the same for all of you.

SECOND HAND SMOKE

Two days before Christmas in '98 the stockings were hung by the chimney with care, chestnuts were roasting on an open fire, sugarplums were head-dancing, and our dogs were tearing apart a little, gray kitten.

'Tis the season.

Living in a more rural area sometimes we unintentionally play host to families of feral cats, this was one of those times--we were not very good hosts.

My son Dave was home for Christmas, and he and his mother were playing in the snow. The tranquility of the moment was disturbed when they saw (and heard) the kitten being worked over pretty well by two of our otherwise friendly dogs, who must have thought they had received an early Christmas present.

Extricating the dog-spit-covered feline was a trick in itself, but the dogs didn't stand a chance against Jean's maternal instincts. The dogs lost their present, and we gained a second cat.

Smokey the cat is now almost 17 years old, now always an indoor cat (his idea and ours), well-fed, shy, warm and loved. For Smokey to go from very perilous existence in the wild to a protected life in our home he had to go through being used as a pull toy by creatures fifteen times his weight.

For us to from what we are now to what we can become, do we also have to be metaphorically pulled apart by the big dogs of life?

Sadly for many of us, that's the case. Smokey would never have experienced the solace in Jean's arms if being held by a human hadn't been infinitely better than the pain of being chomped on by large, canine incisors.

To leave what we currently have, staying must be too painful. That is the root reason anyone would choose to change. As long as we perceive what we have now to be less painful than facing the "dogs" of a potentially brighter future, we ain't goin' nowhere.

If Smokey could only have reasoned that once he got through this dog thing, the rest of his life would be better, he might have gone looking for the dogs.

How are we different from Smokey the cat?

To change our job requires facing the dogs of interviews, working with strangers, new policies and procedures and a chance of failure.

To change our house requires facing the dogs of paperwork, meeting new neighbors, leaving old neighbors, arranging for furniture moving, new grocery and liquor stores and additional financial obligations.

To change a relationship requires facing the dogs of tears, meeting new people, self-doubt, additional financial obligations and a chance of failure.

Maybe it's time we consider all the good things we have in our lives and think about the dogs we had to face to get them. Don't leave an even greater future unexplored. Grab a box of treats, a can of citronella spray and wade through the pack, because sometimes to get what’s best we have to experience what’s worse.

THERE IS HOPE, I HOPE

I'm seeing slight glimmers of hope.

Over the years, I have been very down on the leaders of the Black community. They have constantly portrayed Blacks as victims. When your only power is in your victimhood, you are not inclined to give it up. When you are a victim, you have no control; what or who is victimizing you has to let you go before you can go on. That is certainly a downside, but the upside to victimhood, and why so many buy into this fallacy, is you are no longer responsible for what you do.

Every time an unfortunate situation like Baltimore, Ferguson or New York occurs, out come the "It's not your fault" chants from the Black leaders from the President on down. The latest speech by Hillary (echoing the President) basically said our social system must be unfair and unjust because there is an inordinate number of Blacks in jail. (Is there another reason why that could be true?) The "leaders" chant that this high Black "unfair" incarceration rate is what is responsible for the 70% of families being without a father. I'm sure that's true to some degree, but is it also possible that our increasingly generous and condescending welfare system makes a fragmented family possible if not desirable?

But, I'm seeing slight glimmers of hope.

What I am seeing is the "folks" are filling the void the leaders are creating. Lately, I have heard more interviews with common people affected by the rabble in their midst who recognize what has to be done. This change in the African-American relationship with the rest of society, since it does not appear to be in the Black leadership's interest for any change to happen, this change must begin from the ground up, from the inside out. If substantial change is to occur in the black community, it requires a change in behavior. Truly changing one's behavior is not as easy as it sounds because a true change in behavior requires a change in belief. Once the folks stop believing they are victims, they can start behaving in a way more consistent with a civilized society.

I have seen in those interviews, people who are concerned about things every rational person is concerned about -- the safety of their families and themselves. They desperately want neighborhoods they can live in, not neighborhoods they can die in.

Those who will be the from the ground up leaders of tomorrow will recognize they cannot entrust the future to those in the school system who reward poor performance with advancement to the next level of failure; tomorrow's leaders will not accept that. Leaders cannot entrust the future to the judicial system which negates negative consequences to anti-social actions and just seems to bestow creds on the punks; tomorrow's leaders will not accept that. Leaders cannot entrust the future to the streets where dress and language more reflect some bizarre social club than people who want to contribute to society; tomorrow's leaders will not accept that.

For the last few years, I found it seriously humorous that on every TV show there was the obligatory major black character. Consistent with social progress, today that character has to be in a biracial relationship. While I am cynical enough to believe the producers are doing this to keep Al Sharpton out of their offices, this does have for "Hollywood" positive unintended consequences. The everyday Blacks, who the leaders have labeled as victims, are seen living a life outside of prison, speaking and dressing like prosperous citizens, being a part of an intact family, raising respectful children, and most importantly, not being held down by "the man." These are images the ordinary folks do not get from their leaders and images they must have to create the world in which they desperately wish and deserve to live.

I'm seeing slight glimmers of hope.