Science and Religion?

The issues between science and religion are often insurmountable and intractable but only when neither science or religion has the perspective of the “truth”.

The differences between how we discover the truth and how we verify or corroborate the facts leading up to a repeatable truth is often at the forefront of the controversy between science and religion and in both there has been a long history of denial, fraud, and deception, both purposeful and unintentional.

In the past religious dogmas held sway over the direction of virtually all information and had in its power the ability to accept or deny the steps of men toward truthful endeavors. In a general sense, that statement is true. Religions, mostly the few at the top and those in power did look negatively toward science and its perceived risks toward that power and control.

Even today with the advances in science reaching out in all areas of human development religious leaders are skeptical of the constant changes and obvious wonders that sciences seem to offer, competing with the past miracles of the Bible and offering comforts and conveniences for all from the constant pressures of life.

Good science is good, while bad science is deplorable. The same can be said of religion, good religion is great for the wellbeing and betterment of humanity, but bad religion destroys the human soul, even if you don’t believe in the soul, you get the point.

In the present science has taken the vanguard in search for truthmaking postulations and creating models that enhance their theories. Science has usurped the role of truthful arbitrator, they have become the judge and jury regarding what they believe is worthy of the truth or at least their role in its acquisition.

The truth may be debatable but once established it should never change, if it does change it was not the truth. Truths are constant. Incremental truths that form the foundation of greater truths help establish a pattern of thought and action for the pathway toward complete understanding.

From the perspective of religious theory or from scientific theory the search for truth is the motivator for all discovery.

One example is the religious scientist Galileo who proved his scientific worth through his contributions and modern perspective. Galileo has been called the "father of observational astronomy" the "father of modern physics”, the "father of the scientific method", and the "father of modern science". Galileo Galilei was then convicted of "vehemently suspect of heresy” and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

Despite what the “church” did, Galileo was right, and the world has discovered that science is a viable source of discovery toward that elusive goal of complete understanding, or the truth. Religious leaders at the time were unaware of the leaps toward understanding before them when confronted by Galileo and reacted blindly. It took a few hundred years in some cases for those in religion to catch up.

If the goal for religion and science are essentially the same, why is science and religion at odds when both are trying to achieve a measure of understanding? We know that most of science is based on incremental achievements with some dramatic advances along the way. It is also understood that those advances are increasing, with some at an alarming rate bringing man closer in many ways to the essential truths of life.  Science relies on facts and theories.

Religion is a faith based approach that works in areas that are unproven and not factual but has helped to achieve overall goodness and positive attitude of life in general, and when seen in its totality and compared to the harm that it’s caused the net effect has been positive. Billions find solace in the morality and in the connection to a greater purpose but like science, the cause and effect of individuals is often a major cause of concern, but when viewed through political eyes the risk of death is compounded exponentially for both science and religion.

The basic rift between religion and science is within the process of discovery. Scientist utilizes the scientific method as outlined by Galileo and is "A techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

When look back into history it is very easy to see the compounding mistakes faulty science has created. Too often modern scientists have forsaken the founding principles of scientific research and filled the gaps in their research with a variety of creative patches. See the article attached:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/10/21/how-science-goes-wrong

The result is widespread speculation based on incomplete conclusions. When a scientist states the “the science is settled” It really means that their tired of trying to find the truth or are too invested to admit the failures they’ve found in order to continue riding the gravy train of modern science funding.

Religions have also fudged their findings and create scenarios that are unsustainable, not repeatable and fall into the category of sleight of hand or inspiration.  Should we throughout all religion because of the dubious attempts by some? If your answer is yes, then should we abandon science as well for the same reasons?

Most of religion is an everyday practice toward what is right vs what is wrong and the choices its followers make to live according to those principles they believe will help them achieve peace of mind and eternal joy. Science is also an everyday process of substantiating the work of others and expanding those fundamental principles of partial truths. Both make claims, and both create positive choices for their followers. 

It is obvious that not all science is good nor is all religion good but for the most part, the endeavor toward the truth should be allowed in both attitudes of acceptance. I don’t see the conflict as destructive or mutually exclusive but as a differing perspective searching for the same truths. Not unlike competing theories within science or rival sects within religion.  

You may feel profoundly different and want to remove the competition altogether but that would be a huge mistake, not only for your side of the controversy but for humanity. If you balance all the good of both with all the bad. For example, the inquisition vs social media, what is worse? Compare deaths due to science and deaths vs religious wars? 

These are hard numbers to tabulate. Religious wars are not strictly wars over religious beliefs, many were but most had political motivations attached and those wars may have been perpetrated by leaders who did not follow the precepts of their own religious order. It is a mistake to attribute all wars of the past and the associated deaths with religion as it is a mistake to do so with science. 

Should we blame science for the current opioid crisis? Or from a more general nature should we place blame on science for the deaths and damage due to global warming and its effects from industrialization due primarily from scientific advances? 

Within both categories, the lists of negative effects can be never-ending as we point the microscope of hindsight or a telescope into the future and attempt to predict or associate the deaths that have occurred and the deaths that might occur. Instead, we should all look toward the Good science and the Good religions and glean what we can to improve our lives toward our own search for the truth. This is not a race toward the truth, winner takes all but an effort to live by the truth, whoever finds it, whenever it is found. 

Have a great new year.

The death of men

As a man, the idea of being emasculated is frightening.  The very thought of succumbing to the effects of such a condition is beyond my capacity to willfully consider, but even if it happens, my consciousness would attempt to protect my fragile ego by denying the effects, even as I and we capitulate our will, surrender our desires and give up our manhood, making excuses like, “we’re doing the right thing” or “it’s better for society”, or my favorite, “that’s what women want”, sealing our powerless and impotent existence to the choices of others who want nothing more than to enslave us, control us and manipulate our very essence and genetic sovereignty.

The role of men has been vigorously debated and for the most part, thrown into the dustbin of relevance as most of the issues revolve around the abhorrent actions of a few sexual predators and selfish tyrants destroying any good will than man used to have.

In our country and in the world, man has been forced to relinquish their standard roles of provider and protector to the enraged and willful desires of women.   Not all women and not even most women but loud and hateful women who care nothing about the damage they are doing to men and boys. 

Nature or God or whatever you think is appropriate has a plan.  If you don’t believe in God so be it, nature will suffice.  Both are working from the same playbook and both have the same goals in mind for man (and yes women too) despite what we have collectively allowed to transpir men and women have differing roles, differing perspectives and when combined become greater than the sum of their individual parts.

There is a thing called genetics that defines all that exist.  There are some exceptions but to date those exceptions are minuscule.  99.93 of all humans are genetically defined as either male or female.  Gender is a different story altogether and encompasses awareness, the developmental process and a score of variables that affect the self-identification and how an individual relates to others but in the topic of male and female, there should be no debate.

Society has clouded the reality of birth with the notion that by invoking a simple choice anyone can change who they want to be genetically.  I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but changing what you are is 100% impossible.  Changing who you are is a different process.   The confusion for many comes from the desire to be different than what you were born to be.  Failure to follow the natural course is one of the causes of man’s self-emasculation.

We all have the right to fine-tune who we are, enhance or disrupt the essence of what makes us, us.  Our attitudes, our desires, and goals but anything we wish to accomplish must be within the parameters of what we are.  That is not a limiting condition but one of the endless possibilities and potential. 

Many men, and for a variety of reasons are not happy with their lives.  They then move in directions contrary to their genetic foundations, moves that not only alter their behaviors but alter their perceptions about who they are and their role in society and life. Determining the exact percentage of those who identify as gay, bi or whatever is extremely difficult, but the following link helps to define the numbers, the sources and the difficulty associated with understanding who is gay, who is straight and who is something else. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

That discontent and the erroneous percentages of a ground-breaking research project has influenced the thinking of most toward total acceptance of the idea that “Gay is Normal”.  While being gay is defiantly a choice as supported by the Kinsey’s headline finding that “at least 37% of the male population has some homosexual experience between the beginning of adolescence and old age”, meaning physical contact to the point of orgasm, meaning acting at times gay but deciding to remain heterosexual, getting married, having children and choosing the sexual style to maintain that perception and genetic predisposition. 

How many experiences are required to institute a new gender?  My simple point is that the word gender has supplanted the word for biology.  The biological science is clear, what is not clear for many is the evolving gender role, especially for emasculated men and disenfranchised women.  Gender used to be static, there were males and there were females and in-between there were biologically dysphoric individuals, generally ranging from 1 to 2% with most of those being resolved through early medical treatments. 

2% of the population has green eyes as well but because sex is not involved the dysphoria of identity is not an issue. 

A reader posed a question to me the other day, “why do trees get it right?”  Trees spend nothing on their own behalf.  They have no specific agenda nor political motivation except to grow where they are planted.  Why do trees or nature, in general, succeed within their confined existence?  Do trees suffer from an emasculation syndrome?  There are some species that have different patterns of sexual behavior and even some like the worm that is both male and female (I think, I didn’t spend much time researching the worm).

The question of why does nature as a whole succeed where man does not, keeping in mind that our lack of success is actuated toward a small percentage of our population, but the effects of that small percentage have had resounding effects on the masculinity of males in general, that’s why we talk about it.  Nature follows the rules that have been instituted and are therefore more inclined toward success as a result.

We are forced to honor women by dishonoring ourselves, and in the process, we lose all respect for womanhood.  We are forced to acknowledge the self-indulgent identity of those who have forsaken their own natural individuality and in the process, we are left questioning ourselves.  Our ability to provide for our families is subjugated by our marginalized roles as husbands and fathers and our ability to protect those we love has been sidelined by the lack of loving relationships.  Men (not man and women in this case) have been marginalized and emasculated to the point where they are forced to find love where they can protect what they can and provide for whoever seems to come along.  You can buy anything in the world with money but like all things focused around money, they tarnish easily, are hard to handle and in the end, leave you broke and wanting more.

Many have said that men are responsible, many men are, but in no greater degree than everyone else who buys into the fallacy of a marginalized family, loose morals, selfish motivations and a serious lack of spirituality.  What good is a man without a family?  That is not to say that single men do not have value but in a societal sense is not procreation an essential aspect and is not the family a significant moderator that stabilizes that process?

The family is the foundation of all society, it used to be the reason why boys grew to be men.  Making a family used to be the central and singular reason for getting married and the framework that kept men home, happy and motivated toward upholding the vows of marriage but now it’s too easy to leave, too easy to separate, too easy to just give up.  You can look up the statistics on this one, in almost every category the family is in a drastic decline, taking its toll on the fabric of America and has contributed to the emasculation of men overall.

There are numerous reasons why males are failing to become men. 

1.  Girls become women by simply growing up, but boys have historically had to pass a test.  There are no tests today, boys no longer must show that they’ve become a man, regardless of their sexual preference.

2.  Social Media has infected our boys with pornography and gaming, stripping them of their desire to achieve or be responsible. 

3.  Education has devoted its efforts to the female psyche forsaking the learning needs of boys for girls.  

In his book, Boys Adrift, Dr. Leonard Sax explains that boys need — not want — to be responsible. If they are not needed, they don’t flourish.  Boys need to be responsible, they need, not want to be needed and our society has systematically destroyed those opportunities by portraying men as incompetent, immature and self-absorbed.   Hollywood has methodically enhanced the collective idea that men are no longer able and responsible and have done so very effectively.

We need our Men back.  We need our boys to grow into Men and we need our families back, two parents working together to raise their children to be Men and Women of great worth.  This will not come easy, especially now when we have allowed it to degrade, but we all need to fight for what is right.  The problem is that the boys that usually go off to battle and become Men no longer want to fight.  So, the emasculation continues…

E Pluribus Unum

I’m pissed.  I mean I’m really pissed off over the influences that strangle our lives.  We all feel it, we are all affected by the same pressures but it makes me angry because of the futility of it all.  I’m frustrated, discouraged, embittered and mad at having lived my life and now being faced with an electorate that does nothing to help me and worse, an electorate that is hell bent on destroying what little hope I have left.  So ya I’m MAD as Hell.

I’m mad at having to defend my beliefs.  I’m mad at having to speak like everyone expects me to speak and not the way I want to speak.   I’m mad at being forced to recognize the choices of others just so they can feel better about themselves with no consideration with how I feel.

I’m enraged over the specter of a changing past that will affect my future.  I’ve lived my life based on that past, a past that is being belittled, dismantled and disavowed by short-sighted and selfish motives just so they can have their way.

I’m angered at my government that does nothing but tax and legislate but provides nothing in return.  They take my money, my hard earned money and give it to those who are undeserving, illegitimate and illegal and provide no logical reasons for this transfer of wealth, if you want to call what I have wealth.

I’m incensed at the general idea that those who are not citizens of this once great country have rights that I no longer possess and I am livid that because of my views, many want to curtail my right to express those views and have successfully diminished my rights of Free Speech.

I’m aggravated over a few screaming and irrational voices controlling the national conversation and would like to scream myself but I have a job to keep, a family to feed and I know that if I were to speak my mind, my job would be in jeopardy…Why can they scream, riot and get in my face?  Do they have jobs, families, responsibilities, do they care?

Why is it that so many run to the streets causing mayhem, blocking traffic and access without consideration of those who chose to work, chose responsibility and act to support a system that allows them to demonstrate?  That makes my head spin. 

There is a phrase that should be read by every American that can read.  It is prominently posted and within easy reach, everyone has access to these words.  Most, however, fail to understand the words and have over time stopped trying to understand, most do not even know it exists. 

 

On every coin minted is the phrase “E Pluribus Unum” it is our country's motto, it means:  “Out of many, one”, meaning that out of the many that make up America, we can become one. Becoming one in purpose, in liberty and freedom is the process of becoming American.  From a variety of backgrounds, cultures, languages, and customs we have all come together and under the mantle of  “An American” we live freely and richly all trying to pursue their chosen path of life.  “E Pluribus Unum” is our reminder of what we can become when we understand our common goals of freedom.

The left is attempting to alter this motto and with it our liberty.  The French wanted liberty as well but failed in the simple execution by sacrificing that liberty for equality, thinking that equality leads to Liberty.  We are not Equal, except in our liberty to pursue a life of our choosing.   I challenge all to find two people who are equal without one of them sacrificing their potential for the other.  That sacrifice is an option but an individual choice, not a mandated demand. 

I am most despondent in relation to our Countries shifting morality and the distancing from that simple phrase.  If we fail to pursue liberty and instead choose equality as our goal we will fail at both.  “E Pluribus Unum” is the constant reminder that differentiates America from the rest of the world.  We can be different, we can be ourselves, we can be unique but we can only remain Americans if we adopt the stance of liberty as an individual right and forsake the illogical premise of equality.

Think about it, you may have some similarities with others but in nothing are we equal.  Your differences are what make you, you.  In order to establish equality, the liberty of many would have to be taken away.  Disregard the liberty of some and the liberty of all is impossible.

Communism, Socialism and most dictatorships force their victims to adhere to strict rules and behaviors that instill an overall minimum “equality”.  Very few rise to the top, while most suffer near the bottom.  They feign equality but cannot choose to do as they please, that was taken away when liberty was replaced by sameness.

In Modern Socialism, the services available to the people are much higher and more varied but the logical premise of individual liberty is forsaken and forgotten by both the people and the government.  You may have a temporary increase in services but the overall premise of socialism or communism is just as real.  The need for usurious taxes overshadows the individual drive to succeed, replaced with a universal attitude of mediocrity.   

Europe has fallen prey to this governmental ploy and many Americans are looking hopefully that our government will emulate the policies of higher taxes, less individual responsibility, less opportunity for more routine and marginal services.  Germany is an exception to date but their momentum is driven by governmental controls that have been sold to and purchased by its people.  In the reality of socialism, expansion can only be sustained through the expansive tactics of supported capitalism, a few at the top make billions while the many rely on the services provided by the government, that is not liberty, that is a slow burn to slavery.  Enslaved individuals are the most equal of us all.

If you’re Angry like me, you need to vote for what is right (pun).  You need to remain active in your pursuit of what is “good” and instill through your good works the ideas that liberty, not equality should be our triumphant song.  Other tunes can be played and sung but in relation to the topic at hand, if you sing for equality then your repertoire will be limited and monotonal. 

It is only through liberty that we can all sing the songs of our hearts and only with liberty will our songs have any chance of willing acceptance.  Not all songs will be welcome, which is the risk of freedom.  If your song is not accepted, would you force others to listen to it, mandate that your tune is played on the radio or sung in public?

We should all sing the songs of our hearts and revel in a country that allows our expression but fight against the desire by so many to stop certain voices because they don’t like the tune. 

I am mad but I am also logical and rational, I know the difference between right and wrong and I know what the Left is doing is wrong.  It’s wrong for me, it’s wrong for you and it’s wrong for America.  Vote for the RIGHT, any other vote is Just Wrong.

The Inevitable WAR

The call of,  “can’t we all just get along” as originally voiced by Rodney King, during the 1990’s riots in LA were a swan song of sorts and one that is being replayed over and over on the news.  The hope is to convince those of us who have developed a thick skin to accept the cry for compromise from those who have nothing to offer.

If I’ve already lost you then you either don’t understand or simply don’t care.  But in the face of fairness and compassion let me explain: During the desperate attempt to alter the course of the Supreme Court the Left pulled out all the stops and went after Brett Kavanaugh with a vengeance. So rancorous and so vile were the attacks on Judge Kavanaugh that the entire Senate and country was embroiled in the fiasco that showcased the vile underbelly of the Senate Democrats.  The confirmation process used to be fairly simple with both sides asking probing questions but knowing that the right of a President to fill a vacancy was generally rubber-stamped by both sides of the aisle.

But now the process has allowed very specific ideologies to be revealed and with them the true nature of the LEFT and a forced acceptance of the new RIGHT, if they are to maintain their control of Congress.

What is interesting is in the response to those manifestations, is in the need to rewrite what was said and the need to alter the definitions of the terms used to assuage the impact of the original utterance, or in other words, the left had to seriously backtrack and lie about what was said.  

On September 25 Chuck Schumer said that Kavanaugh “had no presumption of innocence…”

This revelation by the Left is telling in a number of ways.  First, it states emphatically that the position of the Left is to deny the fundamental tenet of Due Process, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  

Second, it demonstrates a serious lack of patriotism from the standpoint of a willingness to set aside this fundamental law.  In that statement, that was echoed by others during the hearings, the expediency and willingness to alter the Constitution are evident and disturbing to those who revere not only the words but the stability of those words in framing a legal system that gives preferences to the accused until evidence is brought forth to corroborate the accusation.  

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).  

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …” This is in relation to a trial but the logical interpretation includes life in general.  Where would our society be if this were not the way?

Senator Mazie Hirono  of Hawaii stated that she “doesn’t believe in the presumption of innocence for conservatives.”  You really have to ask the question of why Republicans or literally half of the United States do not deserve the same protections as the other half.  

Dr. Suess, “When the Star-Belly Sneetches had frankfurter roasts

Or picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts,

They never invited the Plain-Belly Sneetches

They left them out cold, in the dark of the beaches.

They kept them away. Never let them come near.

And that’s how they treated them year after year.

The beginning of Prejudice starts with separation, it starts with exclusion or privilege.  When Hitler began his forceful takeover of Germany his first victims were the Jews. He started by controlling small things and then controlled their very lives.  It starts with a small star on the arm.

If what Senator Hirono is said was true, Those were her words, recorded for all to hear, what is her justification for not allowing the same constitutional rights to Republicans?  I can’t wait to hear the answers…

Beyond Due Process and the presumption of innocents, the issue of Free Speech is another issue attacked by the Left.  They claim to uphold free speech but routinely ask their followers, their constituency, to pursue and confront the Right, disrupting their ability to assemble, their right to peacefully interact socially and have through intimidation, fear and numbers disrupted the ability to speak freely.

It seems as though the only free speech the left wants to allow is speech they agree with.

Kyrsten Sinema, who is campaigning for Jeff Flake's soon to be vacant seat has a very telling position.  On one hand, she claims to be an ardent supporter of immigration control but has stated (again it can be verified), that the immigrants who died in the Arizona Deserts while migrating to the US should be viewed as just as important as those who died in Iraq defending our country. Regardless of how you feel about the Iraq war, the soldiers did sacrifice their lives for this country.

Her views are not unusual for the Democratic Party.  The Left has a position of redefining immigration and in the redefinition is the abolishment of our border security, ICE.  Again you may not agree but in that disagreement you’ve taken a stance away from the rule of law and into the variable of “living and breathing constitution” a document that changes and evolves.  

This scenario is not favored by those who want to maintain our rules and our rights.  Our belief is that those rights are embedded in our foundational principles that were formed to sustain our rights and our privileges.  Asking us to negotiate those principles with the Left is impossible. Any form of negotiation requires one party to give up a portion of their beliefs in order to satisfy the other party and their expectation.  But in this case, giving up even a portion of our foundational belief weakens the entire substructure that is the United States.

The other issue is the Morality of what we on the Right believe.  Our beliefs are based on Morality, an unchanging and foundational principle of action and behavior, although not always followed the dismantling of those morals will result in a complete collapse of our way of life.  How can one with an adopted morality negotiate with those who have no such belief? Morals on the left are subject too, reliant on or depending on what is currently the motivation of the morality, that is not a moral principle, that is moral relativism.  

If your belief system is relativistic and mine is moralistic the simple query of negotiation becomes extremely problematic, not for those who subscribe to relativism or are accepting of a sliding scale of morality but to those who hold fast to principles and standards.  

My challenge is to support your position, uphold your ideology without name calling, without screaming or without forcing someone off the stage but through simple rhetoric, listening and evidentiary dialogue.  I will provide my view with evidence and you do the same. When we can compare the evidence and discuss the conclusions of our views perhaps then I will be open to a discussion and I might even be open to the consideration of negotiating.

A little-known truth about Abraham Lincoln, He was willing to do almost anything to avoid the horrors of war.  He knew of the devastation to the country and stated that he would allow almost any compromise to keep the country from war.  That included allowing slavery to continue within the states of the South. He understood that war would destroy our Nation but he also knew that there was little he could do to prevent it, he tried but the LEFT, yes the LEFT, would have none of it. They forced Lincoln's hand and moved rapidly toward WAR. The rest is history, a history that we have not learned, except that the LEFT again is moving in that direction and it is not about how we negotiate or compromise but how strong we are in our convictions to save this Constitution and Republic.

Me Too Selfishness

The value of the Me Too Movement has been reduced by the outcry to those who lend their support exclusively to the cause of women and fail to regard the issues that plague us all.  In no way do I want to minimize the struggles of those who have been abused, their issues are real, their fight against those who oppress and demean are real but in that fight, many have forgotten that others share in these tragic circumstances that we all call life.

When one issue dominates the life of a person, as the Me Too Movement has, the scope of that singularity diminishes the overall view and connectedness of life in general and blinds the eyes of empathy by the very act of this selfish endeavor.  They are unable to see beyond the one chosen issue and become incapable of sharing in-depth relationships except for other single modality believers like themselves.  Without empathy, they are unable to recognize the others that struggle to battle the demons that invade all of our lives.

The Me Too Movement has blamed all men for the issues of a few and by so doing have alienated their most ardent supporters, Men. 

Truth be told, Men and Women are different.  It is within those differences that the connectedness is formed.  Men cannot exist without Women and Woman cannot exist without Man.  Regardless of what is said or practiced the biological variances between the male and the female require us to coexist.  

Men, in general, are designed to want women, to pursue them, to want to please them, support them as they have done since the creation of mankind.  This biological process is not perfect and demands that men learn to control their desires, learn to uphold the standards that are present within our consciousness for the express purpose of establishing a familial bond, a bond that is impossible without women.  Men and women must work together for the unified purposes of both.  The Me Too Movement pulls men and women apart.

There is a level of extreme selfishness in the movement to exclude, not just with the Me Too but with all practices that promote one over another or attempts to define or rename the innate identities that we are all born with. 

Of course we have the right to choose or become whatever our hearts tell us to pursue but when that drive includes the forceful acceptance by those not changing then the movement becomes exclusionary and inherently selfish as it legislates the norms of the past into non-descript versions based on opinion, or desire, never considering the effects of their new norms will have on civilization and society in general. 

Recent events have made it abundantly clear that an accusation is paramount to evidence and Due Process.  The victim, in this case, should be heard but only to the point of her evidentiary profile holding some form of promise.  Of course, she and all who feel abused should be heard but beyond hearing the need to show some proof is essential if we are to maintain a lawful society.

The Me Too Movement has promoted a policy that “all women need to be believed”. Even simple belief requires some evidence for that belief to flourish.  Some indication, some form of corroboration is essential and is the basis for our Constitutional Laws.  If the purpose is to uphold those laws then proof must be the foundation for a cause.  If the purpose is not to sustain the law but to change the law then we have a different scenario altogether. 

If the law is wrong and all accusers should be believed without proof and that is your goal, then your goal also includes disavowing the constitution of the United States.  That might be the goal of the Me Too movement, to change the very foundation of who we are and to use one issue to alter the lives of everyone else, just because they want what they want and they want it now…

This same attitude exists in a variety of exclusionary groups.  Some of these groups are a single issue group, like the NRA, their goal and purpose is to protect the 2^nd amendment.  Abortion rights groups exist to secure the rights for an abortion.  There are white supremacist groups that want to secure the rights of white America and Black supremacist who want to do the same for their racial preference.  The list of groups is lengthy. 

I have my own ways of distinguishing between the various groups that dot the political landscape and I have to admit it’s based on my political ideology which happens to support the original constitutional powers and bill of rights.  Groups like White Supremacist fall into the category of subversive to the Constitution as they want to enforce racial divisions and alter the laws and rights for those who are non-white.

The Me Too Movement would also fall into the same category due to their exclusionary tactics of dealing with men equitably and the overshadowing process of victims’ rights over others rights, and their fundamental desire to change the way Due Process is upheld

Side note:  A victim is:  a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action, we are all victims to one extent or another. 

Some environmental groups, some political groups, and many others fall within the subversive tactics currently espoused by the Left to undermine what we have for the singular purpose of altering the foundational principles set by our Constitution.  I am a strong believer that our Constitution is the best this world has ever produced.  It is not perfect but it’s closer than we have ever had in the history of humanity. 

I publicly denounce the selfish actions of others as they destroy the lives of those they attack.  I applaud those who fight against these sexual, abusive and horrific incursions but I do not support the alternative of following a selfish motivation, like the Me Too cause to cure the selfish motivation of others.

 Selfishness is the issue, it is the reason to disavow association with any group that is singular in purpose and has the goal of changing or updating or altering the Constitution to fit their selfish desires.

Question everything...but do Nothing

I am flabbergasted with the current trend of not only our political system but in the overall systems of everyday life.  What was understood is now in question and up to interpretation.  What was considered abhorrent is now considered normal.  The shift to our sensibilities is undergoing a wrecking ball of changes that not only change what we think but transform our ability to even consider, leaving us with no foundation of right or wrong, no footing to firmly stand upon while we attempt to process the negative renovations to our existence.

Where we once understood the differences between male and female, we are confronted with a myriad of gender choices.  Being a man or a woman is no longer sufficient, we must identify ourselves as an individual, over and above our pre-assigned gender. 

Bicurious- People who are open to experiment with genders that are not only their own, but do not know if they are open to forming any sort of relationship with multiple genders.  Polysexual- When you are attracted to many genders.  Monosexual- Being attracted to only one gender.  Allosexual- When you are not asexual (attracted to at least one gender).  Androsexual- Being attracted to masculine gender presentation.  Gynosexual- Being attracted to feminine gender presentation.  Questioning- People who are debating their own sexuality/gender.  Asexual- Not experiencing sexual attraction (note that you can also be aromantic and you do not necessarily have to be asexual and aromantic at the same time).  Sometimes the term, ace, is used to describe asexuals.  Demisexual- When you only experience sexual attraction after forming a strong emotional bond first or a romantic bond.  Grey Asexual- When you only experience attraction rarely, on a very low scale, or only under certain circumstances.  - Perioriented When your sexual and romantic orientation targets the same gender (for example being heteromantic and heterosexual or being biromantic and bisexual).  Varioriented- When your sexual and romantic orientations do not target the same set of genders (for example being heteromantic and bisexual or being homoromantic and pansexual).   The belief that hetersexuality is the norm and that sex, gender, sexuality, and gender roles all align.  Erasure- Ignoring the existance of genders and sexualities in the middle of the spectrum.  Cishet- Someone who is both cisgendered and heterosexual.  This is sometimes used as a slur.  Polyamorous- An umbrella term referring to people who have or are open to have consensually have relationships with multiple people at the same time.  Monoamorous- People who have or or open to have relationships with only one other person at a time.  The term, monogamous, is also sometimes used.  Queer- A reclaimed slur for anybody in the LGBT+ community or who do not identify as cisgender and/or hetersexual/heteromantic.  Ally- A supporter of the LGBT+ community that does not identify as LGBT+

Sorry for the small type but I couldn’t get them all in using standard practices.  Also, I don’t wish to offend anyone so, If I didn’t mention a label that you associate with please feel free to make up your own, but please include the definition so that others may understand more fully who you really are.

The Gender roles are only one of many changes that are being thrust upon us, recreating what was already defined and understood. 

Another foundational principle that is being changed is the role of Morality.  Morality is usually defined as a set of societal principles that are adopted and followed by that society in order to sustain that order and provide the basis for laws and punishments. 

The new definition (my own) is that morality is a measure that defines an individual based on his or her own life experiences, creating a sense of being while establishing the fluid parameters of actions based on present needs and desires.

One example is the softening toward the sexual assaults of boys by the repugnant MBLA (the man-boy love association).  In a recent Ted Talk, we were encouraged to understand these individuals, while giving more deference to “who they are”.

You may not agree with this new definition but I think it’s pretty easy to see that we’re moving in that direction.  The same goes with the truth that used to mean an unchanging constant that was the same Yesterday, Today and Forever.  Truths were rare and hard to find but now they can be achieved by anyone at any time and for any reason. 

The last of many changes that are occurring is within the area of personal freedom.  Personal freedom has always had some controversy surrounding it but it was generally understood that in order to gain freedom one had to abide by the laws of the land.  This may sound a bit counterintuitive but when taken from the context of natural laws the truth is very evident.  Stand by a cliff and you will notice the severity of not living the law of gravity.  Obey that law and you are allowed to be free.  Obey the traffic laws and you can drive, disobey and your license the privilege to drive is revoked. 

The new paradigm is laws are only obeyed when it’s convenient and if it serves the means to an end of the motivation of the individual.  More often than before we forgive the punishments and reduce the consequences of creating a pattern of behavior that promotes the willful and deliberate excusal of lawful conduct. 

Depending on who you are those laws are often a non-issue.  Politicians routinely pass laws for the public but distance themselves from the consequences.  Or as is being viewed by millions in the Kavanagh hearings, his confirmation is being stalled due to an unsubstantiated accusation with no evidence, no witnesses and no corroboration.  Our laws are becoming fluid and changeable to fit the needs of those in power. 

The short-term effects of these changes might allow those most interested in gaining some political ground but the long-term consequences will result in lawlessness, increases in graft and corruption, more increases in public disobedience and when taken to its logical conclusion, the result will destroy our society, our Constitution and destroy the United States of America.

It is your choice to follow suit down the rabbit hole but my prediction is that once you are in that hole, backing out is extremely difficult.

Perfecting Perfection

Good and bad deeds play a part in who we are.  It has been established that, mostly through the process of understanding ourselves and viewing what others do and don’t do,  that no one is perfect and no one is absent from the mistakes that plague us all.

Perfection, the goal of many who claim to be on that road to salvation requires a serious self-reflection and a continuous desire to improve each day or at least stay on track toward improving.  The goal of being perfect must include the idea that no one is perfect and only by growing and improving can we find any solace in the act of working toward perfection. 

Logically, at least from my perspective, the attempt toward being perfect must start from the realization of being flawed, broken, inadequate and unworthy, knowing that we cannot obtain that lofty goal while in mortality or ever depending on your view of your existence.  

Striving to do better each day, acting the part, going through the motions or even convincing ourselves that we are doing what we can to improve who we were is, in a sense, a desire toward being perfect, even if we never know what “perfect” is. 

Perfection may be unknown and in our ever-changing world seeking flawlessness may have negative consequences, especially when the desire toward perfection takes precedence over the need to live within this troubled and defective world.  Perfectionism demands acceptance of only that which is perfect, meaning that if you’re a perfectionist you’re demands will always be below your standards and even below your own level of functionality. 

It is not wrong to want to strive for perfection, but it is unrealistic to demand what cannot be obtained or delivered.  Even if I want to be perfect I must understand that my journey toward that lofty goal is mine and mine alone.  My perception of perfection is different and unique to me as yours is to you.  But should that stop us from trying?

The example of Judge Kavanagh is apropos and regardless of what you think of the judge, his policies, his politics or his past, is he or is he not striving to improve his life?  Does he have a meaningful life, has he endeavored to act better today than he did yesterday?  All politics aside, and I understand that sentiment is perhaps unthinkable to some and impossible for others, but if it could be set aside, is this man, Judge Kavanagh, the same man he was when he was 17 and is what he is accused of doing, I stress ACCUSED, equal to the man, the father, and husband he has become?  

Many will claim the accusation sufficient to excuse the nomination leaning toward guilty until proven innocent.  This should trouble all Americans, especially the criminals, Politicians included and those who fail in their attempts to work toward perfection, those that lust after the seedy underbelly of the natural man.  For in that sentiment comes the division and abandonment of individual rights and protections under the law exchanged for an ever-changing dictatorial philosophy of power over the people.   

We are all different than we were.  The issue of perfection and the idea of striving to be better, to be more, to be more healthy, to be more considerate, or even more educated has to be a consideration in relation to who we are now as opposed to who we were.

Are we willing to forgive a person’s past? Are we willing to forget or excuse, or are we adamant regarding the actions of the past, to the point of never allowing the deeds of yesterday to be mitigated by the actions of today or over an entire life?  For those who throw the stones of accusations, I say "watch out for flying rocks".

Of course there are conditions of severity and punishments but in context to the overall measure of a man, what constitutes an unforgivable deed, an unpardonable sin or an intolerable act, and by that same measure of a man (and women) do we stop their progress toward perfection based on our desire to judge them in context to what they used to be, rather than what they are now?

There are many who have done deplorable acts against others and have not changed from who they were and have not been so judged as Judge Kavanagh.  Bill Clinton, Bill Ayers, Reverend Sharpton, to name but a few.  Are they on that road to perfection, have they made vast improvements to their lives over the last 30 years?  If your answer is purely political and your goal is to ruin or destroy than you're not considering the individual and you have discounted your existence and your relationship toward improving your life.

I am not supporting or denying the claims leveled against Judge Kavanagh but only providing context to the motivations of those that accuse and their support toward the efforts to discount an entire life over the spurious claims of one that seems to be purely political pontification for the purpose of prevaricating the nomination process.

As you attempt to seek your own perfection, please take to heart the logical and philosophical desire we all have toward being better…Look to the future and the future will look kindly on you.  

Moralistic machinations

The following is written by Dennis Prager, I wish I could write like this....

It is almost impossible to overstate the damage done to America’s moral compass by taking the charges leveled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh seriously.

It undermines the foundational moral principles of any decent society.

Those who claim the charges against Judge Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford are important and worth investigating, and that they ultimately, if believed, invalidate his candidacy for the U.S. Supreme Court are stating that:

a) What a middle-aged adult did in high school is all we need to know to evaluate an individual’s character — even when his entire adult life has been impeccable.

b) No matter how good and moral a life one has led for 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years, it is nullified by a sin committed as a teenager.

No decent — or rational — society has ever believed such nihilistic nonsense.

This is another example of the moral chaos sown by secularism and the left. In any society rooted in Judeo-Christian values, it is understood that people should be morally assessed based on how they behave over the course of their lifetime — early behavior being the least important period in making such an assessment.

These religious values taught us that all of us are sinners and, therefore, with the exception of those who have engaged in true evil, we need to be very careful in making moral evaluations of human beings.

And, of course, we were taught to extend forgiveness when people demonstrate through their actions that they have changed. As a well-known ancient Jewish adage put it: “Where the penitent stands, the most righteous cannot stand.”

In other words, the highest moral achievement is moral improvement.

Perhaps the most important principle violated by taking this 36-year-old high school-era charge seriously is the principle of the moral bank account.

Every one of us has a moral bank account. Our good deeds are deposits, and our bad deeds are withdrawals. We, therefore, assess a person the same way we assess our bank account. If our good actions outweigh our bad actions, we are morally in the black; if our bad actions greatly outweigh our good actions, we are morally in the red.

By all accounts — literally all — Brett Kavanaugh’s moral bank account is way in the black. He has led a life of decency, integrity, commitment to family and commitment to community few Americans can match. On these grounds alone, the charges against him as a teenager should be ignored.

So, why is this charge taken seriously?

One reason is, as I recently wrote, the greatest fear in America is fear of the left — the fear of what the left will do to you if you cross it. Not fear of God. Not fear of doing wrong. Fear of the left. Offend the left and you will lose your reputation and, quite often, your job or your business.

Another reason is pure, amoral, demagogic politics. No honest American of any political persuasion believes that if a woman were to charge a Democrat-appointed judge such as Merrick Garland with doing to her 36 years ago in high school what Brett Kavanaugh is charged with having done 36 years ago in high school, the Democratic Party and the media would be demanding the confirmation vote be delayed or the candidate withdraw.

A third reason is feminism’s weakening of the American female (and male, but that is another story). A generation ago, a drunk teenager at a party trying groping a teenage girl over her clothing while trying to remove as much of her clothing as possible would not have been defended or countenanced. But it would not have been deemed as inducing post-traumatic stress disorder either.

This weakening of the female is perfectly illustrated by the statement released by Susanna Jones, head of Holton-Arms School, the private preparatory school for girls in Bethesda, Maryland, that the accuser attended. “As a school that empowers women to use their voices, we are proud of this alumna for using hers,” Jones said.

“Empowers women”? Please.

Nearly every woman over puberty has experienced a man trying to grope her (the groping of a pre-pubescent is sexual molestation of a child and an act of evil). My mother was groped by a physician. She told my father about it. My father told the physician that if he were to do it again, he would break his hands. And it remained a family folk tale. If you had told my mother she was a “survivor,” she would have wondered what you were talking about. The term was reserved for people who survived Nazi concentration camps, Japanese prisoner of war camps and cancer survivors, not women groped by a man.

When my wife was a waitress in her mid-teens, the manager of her restaurant grabbed her breasts and squeezed them on numerous occasions. She told him to buzz off, figured out how to avoid being in places where they were alone and continued going about her job. That’s empowerment.

In sum, I am not interested in whether Mrs. Ford, an anti-Trump activist, is telling the truth. Because even if true, what happened to her was clearly wrong, but it tells us nothing about Brett Kavanaugh since the age of 17. But for the record, I don’t believe her story. Aside from too many missing details — most women remember virtually everything about the circumstances of a sexual assault no matter how long ago — few men do what she charges Kavanaugh with having done only one time. And no other woman has ever charged him with any sexual misconduct.

Do not be surprised if a future Republican candidate for office or judicial nominee — no matter how exemplary a life he has led — is accused of sexual misconduct … from when he was in elementary school.

Responsible Parenting?

As a responsible parent and I use the word responsible to designate those individuals who parent using love, respect, patients and have some experience, as opposed to those who do not, in relation to the determining factor in how a child grows and matures.  Responsible parenting is not easy, it is not convenient and it is often a failure in relation to those being parented.

The randomness of parenting is evident across the world.  There is no set principle that governs the process nor guarantees a specific outcome.  Responsible parents may act in accordance with the most correct methodology and strive every day to do what is “right” and still fail miserably in relation to their perception of what is expected for their lives and the lives of their children.

I will be the first to admit that the process of parenting is a learned process and one that is constantly changing, fluctuating and severely mutable to the ever altering criteria’s of life and personal experience.  How you parent one child will almost assuredly not work for another.  How we teach one child or share with another depends on the altering perceptions of both the parent and the child.  The outcome, therefore, is uncertain, helping us all to realize that being responsible is a term that can only be applied to the individuals involved.

Being responsible is also a fairly fluid term depending on your individual morality, or perspective, your ideology and a score of other factors that determine what it means to be “responsible”.  My definition above is fairly generic and predisposes an understanding of what love is, what respect and patients mean and has a willingness to learn in order to gain experience.  Very few of us have the experience needed to parent when we become parents, similar to the challenges that children face when growing up, they don’t have a clue and are now relying on the “experience” of mothers and fathers who also don’t really have a clue. 

That defeatist perspective is not altogether correct.  It may be true to some extent but in all men and women is the innate and inborn desire to love, especially for those that we raise and nurture.  From that foundation, love motivates us to want to learn, how to parent, how to have patience and how to respect, because of Love.  Our hope as parents is that our children will essentially learn to love themselves and others so that they can intern help their children. 

There has developed a disconnect in that learning process.  That loss of respect, even in a society in general, is a direct result of our altered sense of what love is.  Loving in mortality is not unconditional, there are multiple conditions on how we love, who we love and in what measure we exhibit that love.  Unconditional love can only be achieved when one has an omnipotent perspective of an individual or in another term, true love requires a complete measure of the past, present, and future of the person in question. 

In mortality we love physically, we love emotionally and we love, often times without regard to the realities of how true love requires a balanced and sustainable partnership.  Love undirected and love unreturned is unhealthy and is subject to fickle and erratic gyrations that literally destroy the very fabric of Love. 

Why we have these altered states of emotionless connection, a drowning desire to seek out meaningful relationships and an increase in hatred is a direct result of the loss of love and an increase in our level of selfishness.  Selfishness and love cannot coexist, a person cannot be selfish and love another.  There are obviously variables within the development of both but as one grows the other has to diminish, eventually leaving the person with one over the other.    Many of us live with a split personality, clinging to both, trying to balance the unbalanced but never realizing the stress created as we attempt to walk that razor's edge.

This balance is similar in many ways to the political arena.  From the perspective of order vs chaos, many try to walk the tightrope between the two, swaying one way and then the other.  Chaos is the disengagement of order, the deterioration or degradation of systems that are ordered and logical. 

The Left wants to intercede in all things to the point of chaos.  Very much like a family without order or rules or standards, that family degrades and the individuals spin away leaving nothing but the faint memory of what used to be family.  The Right may not be much better but they do come from an ideology that professes order through morality, standards, and rules as their foundation. 

At present, the Left has tried to dismantle immigration and have promoted open borders.  They have been instrumental in diminishing any moral standards but at the same time, they judge those who stray from their morality in the harshest of terms.  The left continues to create chaos in relation to religious freedoms and free speech and well as promoting hate speech the and supporting the causes championed by the black-shirted Anti-fa movement, that by the way is the quintessential precursor to a real fascist state.

The right is like the Father of a family who is tired of trying, too tired to intervene, too tired to care.  The left has an agenda but they don’t have a plan, all they want is POWER. The right has a moral standard but is too shell-shocked to push forward, leaving the field wide open and vulnerable to whatever form of power has the will to take over.

Like a family, are we responsible parents?  Do we know it all?  Of course not, but do we know enough to push forward and make a positive difference? I believe we do.  Like the example at the beginning, the Left is like a teenager, vying for power, competing with Dad, disagreeing with everything he does or says.  And like most teenagers, they simply don’t have a clue.  What does the responsible parent do?  We push forward with what we know to be right. We insist on certain behaviors or we step in to regulate the abhorrent actions. 

Maybe we need to do some more enforcing and be less understanding, because if we don’t those teenagers will grow to be mean, selfish and be without the basic love that is needed for society to flourish, oh wait, It’s already happened.  The Democrats (the Left) are mean, unforgiving, driven by power and control, willing to do anything and everything to further their chaotic cause of Socialism.

We might want to learn a thing or two, like more love, more adherence to standards, more forgiving and more strict in our own lives... if we are to have any say in the future…but then, like most families the kids always know so much more than the parents, so what's the point?