Well, those terms DO seem to go together, really. After all, isn't it two of the three branches of government that have to solve this problem, and aren't they the same two branches that got us into this problem in the first place? But the thing that gets me the most is idiots like Lieberman carrying on about having to give up Social Security funding so as to insure a "strong defense." When I heard that, I knew instinctively that I was truly listening to a brain dead politician.
First, before we really start tearing into things, shouldn't we at least understand some of the terms used in this debate? Really? Consider the brain dead statement just listed. Consider the term "defense." Now, really, how does, say, a new multi billion dollar long range bomber actually fit that term? What has bombing targets that are 10,000 miles away got to do with defending the United States of America? Really! It is purely offensive from the start. It has nothing to do with defending the nation. And no, better war making capability is not defense, it is offense. But that IS over-simplifying, I suppose. So let's consider the other half of that brain dead statement.
Of course, the brain dead politician really was talking about entitlement programs, not merely Social Security, but that is trying to put better tasting words in his mouth for him. But, really, what IS an entitlement program? The most frequent definition I have seen is an entitlement program is an unfunded obligation. Sort of what the Federal government does to the states, for instance, when it makes new and more sweeping changes in education. But we are talking on the Federal level here, and the two most frequently "fingered" entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare.
Now by the very definition of an entitlement program, then, neither of these two programs can even be considered entitlements. Why? Check your pay check. You will see that you are paying a dedicated tax to Social Security, and another to Medicare. If they are both funded, at least in part, by a dedicated tax, then they are not truly entitlement programs. Now there may have been unfunded obligations laid upon these funds that are supported by these dedicated taxes, but the programs themselves are not entitlement programs as they are not paid for by funds that are in the general fund but outside of the budget. And during this most recent crisis over the debt ceiling, the Chief Actuary at Social Security was quoted as saying that Social Security's current receipts are more then enough to pay its outlays. Let that soak in for a minute. Even though the Obama Administration and this Congress passed a budget that reduced the Social Security tax rate by 2% for this year, and that the unemployment rate is at 10% and possibly as high as 20%, depending on how you figure what is a job, the Social Security was in the black. Another thought to consider is the fact that the Social Security "fund" owns $3.7 trillion of the government's debt. Now how can a program that is unfunded to start with, possibly he a holder of government debt? Not just a holder, but the biggest holder? So if Social Security is a factor in the yearly deficit, it is because the government has to pay interest to the program on that accumulated debt that the fund holds. Does that paint a different picture for you?
So WHO is spending all that "entitlement" money that we hear so much about? Consider, if you will the Defense Department. If you go on the various web pages and look at employment possibilities, you will invariably see base positions that are referred to as NAF jobs. NAF stands for "non-appropriated funds." So if you are looking for an entitlement program, a program that is an unfunded obligation, you just found one. See, the Budget is APPROPRIATED funds. If I give you $10 million to use as your budget, and you plan all your expenses out of that, all those obligations will be funded. Now, say you looked at your program and suddenly realized that you leased the property and equipment, set up accounts for the utilities to be paid, put together the payroll for the front office, but somehow forgot to hire people to to do the rest of the jobs, why you could always turn back to your source of funding and submit a request for a contract, as an example, that would bring on board the people to do the job. Of course, this contract isn't part of your budget, so it represents an unfunded obligation. A NAF program or even, if you choose to use the phrase, an entitlement.
I can clearly recall during the Clinton years, when there was this big push for a balanced budget, that while working for the Commissary in Tucson, the whole operation was contracted out. When I worked for Luke AFB at the gunnery range a few years later, it, too, was contracted out. In both cases, the cost of the contract exceeded the cost of the civilian workers that were currently doing the job, but it was done as a "budget cutting action," thus reducing the appropriated funds supported budget, even though it drove up the costs of the operations. But it didn't come out of their budget, it came from non-appropriated funds - an entitlement.
Now fast forward to all those BIG contracts that were awarded for support of the war efforts in the middle east and realize that those contracts are not part of the defense department budget, but are part of the non-appropriated funds that are requiring all that borrowing. Beyond a doubt, the Defense Department, the owner of the lion's share of appropriated funds, is by far the biggest entitlement program as well. So, Joe, leave Social Security alone and go find out why the Defense Department can't live on half of the appropriated funds. I can't "defend" a department that is so "offensive" when it comes to spending money that doesn't belong to it. How can you?
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
NATO and Libya
First, I must admit up front that I do NOT watch TV. Because of that, I miss out a lot on the hype that goes around about things like what is happening in North Africa. Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about it nor that I don't read about it, and it is getting clearer to me that there is something very strange about this "war of liberation."
First off, the population of the nation isn't all that large, so if Gadhafi was the "evil dictator" that he is made out to be, it seems to me that the government would have collapsed very quickly. Since it hasn't, I have to question how "unpopular" Gadhafi is compared to the so called "rebels." What I read on the internet tends to give me reason to question the validity of the tag "rebels."
And here again, I also have to wonder what the "stake" in this "civil war" is for NATO and the US. I can not find any justification for the United States forces being used in what should be a simple internal struggle between a group of people that are upset with their government and the government that is upset with that group. I have to admit that I didn't see any interdiction from NATO or the US in Egypt, so why Libya? Could it REALLY truly be all about oil after all?
But in the end, when the combined might, if you will, of Europe and the US haven't brought down the Leader, I would have to say, it tells ME that there are far more Gadhafi supporters then there are rebels. So NATO and Obama, leave Libya to the Libyans, and get to hell out of their personal affairs!
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Bailouts aren't really gifts, are they?
I guess we are all probably dismayed - well not all, but most of us that make $50,000 and under probably are - with what many bill as a criminal act perpetrated by Washington DC. The great Bailout of those that caused their own problems. Really, isn't that really what just happened?
These people tried every shady way known to man, and some that hadn't been previously known, to swindle money from investors. Let's face it, when you package what you truly believe to be worthless paper, and that is what some of the derivatives were, and sell them as a viable commodity, you are, in effect, swindling anyone that buys in, period. These people were no better then stage coach robbers, or muggers. They abused the trust given them by people trying to set up their retirement programs, and flat stole from them!
And what did the elected representatives of the American citizenry do? After being inundated by enough calls and emails to practically take the system down with a 90 to 1 against ratio, they played hardball! They voted down the original bill - under pressure - and when enough "goodies" were added, they passed it and ran out of town! Never mind that the people that voted them into office - that they are supposed to represent - said leave this dog lying! No, they gave to the rich any amount necessary to insure that they would have adequate bribes and campaign funds for the upcoming, and apparently already fixed, election. Why else would you totally ignore the voters demands unless you KNEW the election was already fixed, and your re-election was in the bag! Of course, knowing that you would never have to work again due to your retirement program, should you be one of the token losers, doesn't hurt to much as an incentive.
A few years ago, the Euro and dollar was at approximate parity. Now the Euro is worth about $1.40. In fact, since Bush took office, the dollar has lost about 50% of its value against nearly every currency in the world. In effect, then, the cost of labor in the US has been brought down by an equivalent amount. That is, if you were making $15 an hour doing the same job someone overseas was doing for $10 an hour, you are now effectively making the same wage. Thank George and Congress for that. Don't blame that one on the companies that have been running all our good jobs overseas for the new parity. Their taking the jobs overseas in the first place we can probably blame on Clinton's administration.
But we have slid into a second tier nation in the past few years, when you look at standard of living as a rule of thumb, heading for third world status. We make far too little of the things we use in this country to pretend we aren't closer to third world then first world. We look at our standard of living and "think" we are doing well. We are still making big money, right? Wrong! We might be making big sums of money, but when you think of it in real buying power, the only thing that keeps you thinking you are doing okay is that manufacturers of products are still finding places that are so impoverished, that they can still steal from them by "industrializing" them with outmoded, polluting factories, and pay so little labor that the price is still cheap enough to sell to us with our shrinking currency. Some day, however, they will finally run out of those labor markets, but when that happens, the FED will have sent the value of the dollar so low that you won't be able to buy anything, even if you are making $50 an hour!
I remember a day, many years ago, when my Mother said that she wished they'd stop making pennies since there was so little you could buy with them. I responded to her that the day they stopped making pennies would be the day that prices changed 5 cents at a time instead of 1 cent at a time. I didn't want that day to come. On the other hand, I can see in the not too distant future that there will be a day coming when there won't be pennies and nickels. There probably won't even be dimes, and maybe not even quarters. The only coins we will carry will be half dollars and probably a whole host of new coins such as a dollar, 5 dollar, 10 dollar, 20 dollar, and maybe even 50 dollar coins. The bills we carry will be 100s, 500s, 1000s, and probably 5ooo dollar bills. Why? Because the dollar will be about the same value as a penny is now. And you probably won't have to wait too long to see that day, now that the government has chosen to take on the trillions of dollars worth of worthless paper that the rich people used to steal wealth from the rest of the world.
Enough of this rant. It's giving me a headache, and I can't afford to buy aspirin anymore!
These people tried every shady way known to man, and some that hadn't been previously known, to swindle money from investors. Let's face it, when you package what you truly believe to be worthless paper, and that is what some of the derivatives were, and sell them as a viable commodity, you are, in effect, swindling anyone that buys in, period. These people were no better then stage coach robbers, or muggers. They abused the trust given them by people trying to set up their retirement programs, and flat stole from them!
And what did the elected representatives of the American citizenry do? After being inundated by enough calls and emails to practically take the system down with a 90 to 1 against ratio, they played hardball! They voted down the original bill - under pressure - and when enough "goodies" were added, they passed it and ran out of town! Never mind that the people that voted them into office - that they are supposed to represent - said leave this dog lying! No, they gave to the rich any amount necessary to insure that they would have adequate bribes and campaign funds for the upcoming, and apparently already fixed, election. Why else would you totally ignore the voters demands unless you KNEW the election was already fixed, and your re-election was in the bag! Of course, knowing that you would never have to work again due to your retirement program, should you be one of the token losers, doesn't hurt to much as an incentive.
A few years ago, the Euro and dollar was at approximate parity. Now the Euro is worth about $1.40. In fact, since Bush took office, the dollar has lost about 50% of its value against nearly every currency in the world. In effect, then, the cost of labor in the US has been brought down by an equivalent amount. That is, if you were making $15 an hour doing the same job someone overseas was doing for $10 an hour, you are now effectively making the same wage. Thank George and Congress for that. Don't blame that one on the companies that have been running all our good jobs overseas for the new parity. Their taking the jobs overseas in the first place we can probably blame on Clinton's administration.
But we have slid into a second tier nation in the past few years, when you look at standard of living as a rule of thumb, heading for third world status. We make far too little of the things we use in this country to pretend we aren't closer to third world then first world. We look at our standard of living and "think" we are doing well. We are still making big money, right? Wrong! We might be making big sums of money, but when you think of it in real buying power, the only thing that keeps you thinking you are doing okay is that manufacturers of products are still finding places that are so impoverished, that they can still steal from them by "industrializing" them with outmoded, polluting factories, and pay so little labor that the price is still cheap enough to sell to us with our shrinking currency. Some day, however, they will finally run out of those labor markets, but when that happens, the FED will have sent the value of the dollar so low that you won't be able to buy anything, even if you are making $50 an hour!
I remember a day, many years ago, when my Mother said that she wished they'd stop making pennies since there was so little you could buy with them. I responded to her that the day they stopped making pennies would be the day that prices changed 5 cents at a time instead of 1 cent at a time. I didn't want that day to come. On the other hand, I can see in the not too distant future that there will be a day coming when there won't be pennies and nickels. There probably won't even be dimes, and maybe not even quarters. The only coins we will carry will be half dollars and probably a whole host of new coins such as a dollar, 5 dollar, 10 dollar, 20 dollar, and maybe even 50 dollar coins. The bills we carry will be 100s, 500s, 1000s, and probably 5ooo dollar bills. Why? Because the dollar will be about the same value as a penny is now. And you probably won't have to wait too long to see that day, now that the government has chosen to take on the trillions of dollars worth of worthless paper that the rich people used to steal wealth from the rest of the world.
Enough of this rant. It's giving me a headache, and I can't afford to buy aspirin anymore!
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
And in the beginning was another post
Have you ever set out on a walk with the intent to really discuss things with God? I mean, really. I used to take long walks in the desert for that specific reason. I would end up standing next a cactus and discussing the meaning of life, the origin of space, and what exactly free will really was. It was one of those many discussions that I came to realize that I could no longer whine and say "God, why do you allow children to starve to death? Why do you allow people to be horribly maimed by the machines of war? Why do you allow hatred and greed to run rampant on this beauty blue and green ball?" And the reason I had to let Him off the hook was simple - I finally got it through my head what it really meant to have "free will."
No, you don't get free will from an attorney, that's for sure. You get it only from God. And you probably noticed in the paragraph above, that I referred to God as Him. Yes, I am a true believer in that God is masculine. Why? Probably because I use the word god, but with a capital, since it is being used as a title. After all, had I thought God was feminine, I would be using the title Goddess, right? Why don't I use God's name, you might ask? Could it possibly be that I am not sure what His name really is? Well, if you believe that, then you truly are a perceptive person and probably should be writing this Blog in the first place! You would be correct in that assumption, for I do not accept the current list of names used as His name as likely to be correct. It's also why I have a hard time with interpretations of the Bible, and some of the things that have sprung from it.
By the way, don't necessarily expect these ramblings to be "on topic," whatever that might conjure up in your mind. For you see, my mind skips about from subject to subject, some times with lightning speed, and as such, the "links" between subjects may not be obvious to anyone other then those that can get into my head - small space there, so not many will be able to at any one time. Thus the thoughts may be coherent, but not necessarily cohesive.
Getting back to whining and free will might be a good thing at this time. See, even from the beginning, God gave Man "free will." When he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, so to speak, he supposedly admonished them not to eat from that one tree that He placed off limits. Of course, had He truly not wanted them to eat of its fruit, He would not have placed the tree there in the first place. After all, He knew all and would have known that at some point in time, when all other fruits had been sampled, the day would come when they would taste it to see how it was different from the rest. ALL children are like that, and Adam and Eve certainly qualified as children, regardless of their state of physical adulthood.
No, there is NO doubt that it was EXPECTED by Him that they would eat of the fruit. It wasn't a case of IF, but WHEN. My guess is that they went slower then they were expected, thus the need to send the serpent to entice them into it. Sounds a little different from the normal line of thinking, doesn't it? But do you REALLY believe that God was surprised in any way by this "original sin?" Hardly.
Nor was it a sin, since it was expected to happen in the first place. Fact is, the concept of "original sin" is one of those great mysteries of the mind - right up there with "the big bang" for man made nonsenses. Let's face it. Why would God have created Adam and Eve in perfectly functional bodies, fully capable of procreation, if it wasn't intended that they were going to breed and start a population explosion? If He REALLY planned on them being just two simple samples living out an existence on planet Earth for time eternal, he probably would have made them sexless in the first place. There would have been no need to give Adam a female companion if they were only to live peacefully in the Garden of Eden for all eternity. He could have given Adam a male companion instead. That would have prevented population as well. No. It was God's intent that Adam and Eve would not only eat of the fruit of the one tree they weren't supposed to, thus realizing that they were a breeding pair and let's just wait and see what happens next.
So you might guess from the above, that I don't place great stock in the Bible. If that was your reaction, then you would be wrong. I do, however, "moderate" my beliefs in that I interpret the meanings of what is said, and "filter out" the portions that are obviously written with religious controls in mind. That is, consider the New Testament. I believe in Jesus Christ and I take seriously to heart what I believe are his teachings. I do not, however, take seriously to heart the extrapolations to them that are obviously made with the church taking control of the "congregation," if you will. I have little faith in "hellfire and brimstone" being the fate of those that do not follow the teachings of the church, but I do believe that eternal life may not be in the future of those that do not follow the teachings of Christ.
One of the greatest puzzles to me is the apparent belief that you can go to war for Christ or kill for God. How does a a group of people that say they believe in a ministry of love and sharing actually get to the point of thought that they are doing Christ's work by slaughtering their fellow man? The theory that we are a civilized society, thus think with our upper brain rather then our lower brain, yet are able to justify torture, slaughter, and maiming of innocent people "in the name of all that is holy and good," makes about as much sense as saying you are saving a man by killing him. All I know is that a "Christian" could not do the things that too many of these "born again Christians" take as gospel. But then there is that "free will" we were given in the first place, so until the time comes that we are held accountable for our personal actions by Him, well like I said, I had to let Him off the hook for the crap that we do to each other with our "free will."
Well enough for this time. More to follow in other posts, but for now, love and light in your path.
No, you don't get free will from an attorney, that's for sure. You get it only from God. And you probably noticed in the paragraph above, that I referred to God as Him. Yes, I am a true believer in that God is masculine. Why? Probably because I use the word god, but with a capital, since it is being used as a title. After all, had I thought God was feminine, I would be using the title Goddess, right? Why don't I use God's name, you might ask? Could it possibly be that I am not sure what His name really is? Well, if you believe that, then you truly are a perceptive person and probably should be writing this Blog in the first place! You would be correct in that assumption, for I do not accept the current list of names used as His name as likely to be correct. It's also why I have a hard time with interpretations of the Bible, and some of the things that have sprung from it.
By the way, don't necessarily expect these ramblings to be "on topic," whatever that might conjure up in your mind. For you see, my mind skips about from subject to subject, some times with lightning speed, and as such, the "links" between subjects may not be obvious to anyone other then those that can get into my head - small space there, so not many will be able to at any one time. Thus the thoughts may be coherent, but not necessarily cohesive.
Getting back to whining and free will might be a good thing at this time. See, even from the beginning, God gave Man "free will." When he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, so to speak, he supposedly admonished them not to eat from that one tree that He placed off limits. Of course, had He truly not wanted them to eat of its fruit, He would not have placed the tree there in the first place. After all, He knew all and would have known that at some point in time, when all other fruits had been sampled, the day would come when they would taste it to see how it was different from the rest. ALL children are like that, and Adam and Eve certainly qualified as children, regardless of their state of physical adulthood.
No, there is NO doubt that it was EXPECTED by Him that they would eat of the fruit. It wasn't a case of IF, but WHEN. My guess is that they went slower then they were expected, thus the need to send the serpent to entice them into it. Sounds a little different from the normal line of thinking, doesn't it? But do you REALLY believe that God was surprised in any way by this "original sin?" Hardly.
Nor was it a sin, since it was expected to happen in the first place. Fact is, the concept of "original sin" is one of those great mysteries of the mind - right up there with "the big bang" for man made nonsenses. Let's face it. Why would God have created Adam and Eve in perfectly functional bodies, fully capable of procreation, if it wasn't intended that they were going to breed and start a population explosion? If He REALLY planned on them being just two simple samples living out an existence on planet Earth for time eternal, he probably would have made them sexless in the first place. There would have been no need to give Adam a female companion if they were only to live peacefully in the Garden of Eden for all eternity. He could have given Adam a male companion instead. That would have prevented population as well. No. It was God's intent that Adam and Eve would not only eat of the fruit of the one tree they weren't supposed to, thus realizing that they were a breeding pair and let's just wait and see what happens next.
So you might guess from the above, that I don't place great stock in the Bible. If that was your reaction, then you would be wrong. I do, however, "moderate" my beliefs in that I interpret the meanings of what is said, and "filter out" the portions that are obviously written with religious controls in mind. That is, consider the New Testament. I believe in Jesus Christ and I take seriously to heart what I believe are his teachings. I do not, however, take seriously to heart the extrapolations to them that are obviously made with the church taking control of the "congregation," if you will. I have little faith in "hellfire and brimstone" being the fate of those that do not follow the teachings of the church, but I do believe that eternal life may not be in the future of those that do not follow the teachings of Christ.
One of the greatest puzzles to me is the apparent belief that you can go to war for Christ or kill for God. How does a a group of people that say they believe in a ministry of love and sharing actually get to the point of thought that they are doing Christ's work by slaughtering their fellow man? The theory that we are a civilized society, thus think with our upper brain rather then our lower brain, yet are able to justify torture, slaughter, and maiming of innocent people "in the name of all that is holy and good," makes about as much sense as saying you are saving a man by killing him. All I know is that a "Christian" could not do the things that too many of these "born again Christians" take as gospel. But then there is that "free will" we were given in the first place, so until the time comes that we are held accountable for our personal actions by Him, well like I said, I had to let Him off the hook for the crap that we do to each other with our "free will."
Well enough for this time. More to follow in other posts, but for now, love and light in your path.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
First entry
Since for everything, there has to be a first, then this will represent the first Dry Thought to be placed here. Then again, depending on how violent people react, it could be the last Dry thought as well! I don't claim to have skin 6 feet thick.
So the first thought will have a little background of where I write from, I guess. I consider myself as being religious and believing in the teachings of Christ. I do not claim to be a Christian, however, as I don't accept the godhood of Christ, nor do I pray to the Creator through any other means other then prayers TO the Creator. Also, unlike most apparent Christians, I don't accept war as a means to an end. You can not find peace at the barrel end of a gun. Peace comes from sharing love and forgiveness, not from sharing bombs and bullets. There is much in the Bible that I accept, but I don't accept a lot of the interpretations of it, much like I don't necessarily accept current popular interpretations of Nostradamus' quatrains either. Not that I am equating the two books, but if you think I am, that's your problem, not mine. God gave me a very wide span of interests, and as such, I tend to let my thoughts roam, and before you ask, no, not all thoughts are dry. I some times come up with thoughts when I am wetting my whistle, and some times, those are quite profound!
I live in the United States, love what the country stood for in my childhood, and have come to fear what it stands for now in my later years. I see a lot of replication of history here, and I can't understand why others don't. Then again, I don't watch TV and refuse to own a cell phone, think that the proliferation of high frequency, high powered electro-magnetic wave transmissions lie at the heart of cancer and try to limit my adding to that problem by not using such things as wireless services. I also believe "global warming" is a natural result of the fact that the Sun is hotter now then it was in years past, and not because more people are breathing or because more cows are farting. I tend to believe that "you are what you eat," and as such notice that most ambulatory creations on Earth are made of meat and tend to eat the stuff that doesn't move around much.
I have been around long enough to have formed an opinion on nearly everything and will, from time to time, share some of those opinions with you. I rely on what knowledge I have acquired through my life and God's gift of intuition to try to separate what's real from what is fantasy, and I came to the conclusion that "reality TV" fits the second part, not the first part, in spite of it's name. And I have also wondered, as I watch the way people function - or is that dysfunction? - through life, if perhaps they see this reversed. I could run on for hours, wear my fingerprints completely off - and possibly get busted for doing so (lost identity) - typing, but I will draw this to a close. I am a "truther," a believer in The Constitution, and am old enough to remember when "under God" wasn't in the Pledge of Allegiance, and recently started to wonder why we have ever required anyone to stand up and say the Pledge in the first place. After all, in theory, this is a free country filled with free people, and as such no such pledge should be required. That dry thought probably started a brush fire.
Until the next entry, then follow the Vulcan's salutation, and love and light in your path.
So the first thought will have a little background of where I write from, I guess. I consider myself as being religious and believing in the teachings of Christ. I do not claim to be a Christian, however, as I don't accept the godhood of Christ, nor do I pray to the Creator through any other means other then prayers TO the Creator. Also, unlike most apparent Christians, I don't accept war as a means to an end. You can not find peace at the barrel end of a gun. Peace comes from sharing love and forgiveness, not from sharing bombs and bullets. There is much in the Bible that I accept, but I don't accept a lot of the interpretations of it, much like I don't necessarily accept current popular interpretations of Nostradamus' quatrains either. Not that I am equating the two books, but if you think I am, that's your problem, not mine. God gave me a very wide span of interests, and as such, I tend to let my thoughts roam, and before you ask, no, not all thoughts are dry. I some times come up with thoughts when I am wetting my whistle, and some times, those are quite profound!
I live in the United States, love what the country stood for in my childhood, and have come to fear what it stands for now in my later years. I see a lot of replication of history here, and I can't understand why others don't. Then again, I don't watch TV and refuse to own a cell phone, think that the proliferation of high frequency, high powered electro-magnetic wave transmissions lie at the heart of cancer and try to limit my adding to that problem by not using such things as wireless services. I also believe "global warming" is a natural result of the fact that the Sun is hotter now then it was in years past, and not because more people are breathing or because more cows are farting. I tend to believe that "you are what you eat," and as such notice that most ambulatory creations on Earth are made of meat and tend to eat the stuff that doesn't move around much.
I have been around long enough to have formed an opinion on nearly everything and will, from time to time, share some of those opinions with you. I rely on what knowledge I have acquired through my life and God's gift of intuition to try to separate what's real from what is fantasy, and I came to the conclusion that "reality TV" fits the second part, not the first part, in spite of it's name. And I have also wondered, as I watch the way people function - or is that dysfunction? - through life, if perhaps they see this reversed. I could run on for hours, wear my fingerprints completely off - and possibly get busted for doing so (lost identity) - typing, but I will draw this to a close. I am a "truther," a believer in The Constitution, and am old enough to remember when "under God" wasn't in the Pledge of Allegiance, and recently started to wonder why we have ever required anyone to stand up and say the Pledge in the first place. After all, in theory, this is a free country filled with free people, and as such no such pledge should be required. That dry thought probably started a brush fire.
Until the next entry, then follow the Vulcan's salutation, and love and light in your path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)