Eat healthy, but not too much (Pizza at least once a week)
Exercise, but as little as possible
Sleep, as much as I want.
Avoid poisons such as drugs and tobacco. (alcohol is a drug)
And, by the way, rely heavily on my doctor and pharmacists
Made it to 76. Maybe I am doing something right
In a way, I wish I were more as a reporter. I guess that if I had taken the right classes in college, I might have learned how to do research better. Mostly, if I can’t find it on the internet, I’m sunk. Moreover, what they put on the internet isn’t always true. Like the fella said, you can’t believe half of what you read or anything you hear. So it is that in order to write something and be believable, I have to find it in at least three places, better if it’s five.
Well, there is one thing I can write about… that which I have seen or experienced. For instance, I do have considerable knowledge on the gas shortages of the seventies. I was there. I saw it and I experienced it. If someone tried to tell me it didn’t happen, I would know the person either lacked the knowledge or was lying. Oddly, there are people who do that sort of thing. Perhaps I might one day write a book on such things. There would be but two problems. The book would be very thick and I’d never finish it. As soon as I thought I was done, I’d have ten more things to add to it.
You see, I don’t write so fast. Moreover, before I could release it, I would have to proof read it three times to make sure I didn’t have a bunch of stupid grammar mistakes. There are people in this world that could likely write something like that but I’m afraid no one would read it. One dem intentionally tells something I know is false. Before I can get my computer turned on, ten more repeat the lie, which, of course makes it true, even though it’s not.
Moreover, people do like to believe the lie. In some regards, it is called gossip and the only place you would see something like it printed were in the tabloids like The National Inquirer. Nowadays, I am more prone to believe The National Inquirer than something like the New York Times.
So, let me explain something I saw on TV. Some of it I suppose you can take with a grain of salt. However, it is what I saw and it is what I heard, maybe 15 or 20 years ago. My memory is not so good, but I do remember enough to make it an effective true story.
Sorry, can’t remember, but I think it was on Sixty Minutes. To be sure it was one of those TV magazines and it includes my thoughts and emotions as I heard it.
At any rate, they were interviewing a chaplain of either Yale or Harvard. They said which one, I forgot, sorry. The point is, it caught my attention. Why…why, would they be interviewing a chaplain. I figured they would never interview any kind of a preacher on any major network TV, let alone on prime time. I had to stop and see what my ears would not believe.
Actually, something else surprised me. I didn’t know they had chaplains at those colleges. I sort of wanted to find out about that too.
So the interview began. They introduced the man and immediately got down to the reason they decided to interview him. He was homosexual. I guess it is one of those man bites dog stories. I mean, if the man taught against homosexuality, no one would want to give him a second on TV let alone one of the expensive minutes.
So now I’m thinking the commentator will never bring up the point that the Bible does speak against homosexuality. I mean, 15 years earlier, they would have. Certainly not in the here and now. Surprised me! He did. He had the nerve to ask about it.
Here’s the thing. It was arranged. Now the so called chaplain was given a soapbox and he was not going to pass up the chance to use it for spreading his guile and deceit. You see, he explained that God meant it only for the Jews. You see, he wanted the Jews to become a large nation. If they were a bunch of homosexuals, they would not increase in population.
Okay. After I reached up and put my jaw back in place and I listened to his logic, weak as it was. Still, I had to admit that I could not sit down with anyone and explain his error. Nonetheless, I knew the reason for the logic. He wanted to believe the lie, possibly suggested to him by someone else, so he did.
Afterword, I went to my Bible and read the passage he quoted, Leviticus 18:22-23 and quite frankly, as far as it went, I had to agree with the man. But then I read on. Verses 24 & 25 makes it obvious that the man was in error. Perhaps he stopped reading before he got there.
Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
It is plain that the reason God has given the Hebrews the land is that God is also punishing those who were in the land. They had there chance to repent and didn’t. If you look at the larger picture, you will see they were given 440 years. And, because they were defiling the land, God has given the Hebrews instructions to utterly kill everyone there. It was Gods way of pronouncing judgement on those who lived in the land, same as He can pronounce judgement on the US if we don’t repent. If the US continues to defile this land with, among other things, homosexuality, He would be completely righteous to destroy us and remove us from this rich and bountiful land just as he did those in the land given to the Hebrews.
This tells me that God simply does not like homosexuality, regardless of who is doing it. Moreover, it speaks of them defiling themselves, which tells me that it is not only wrong but deviant. You see, of all the sins, homosexuality is the only one that is not natural. I guess you could say, it was man made. In Romans, Paul calls it unnatural.
How-some-ever the man did have something of a point. When God gave the law to the Israel, He gave it to Israel as a gift. If they obeyed the law, God promised to bless them and keep them in the land. If they disobeyed the law, God told them that he would punish them and drive them out of the land, which He eventually did.
Nonetheless, I do not see that it would cause any harm to any nation to collectively follow God’s law to the best of our ability, or at least the 10 Commandments. Murder, stealing, lying and even jealousy can spell doom for any country. Certainly, idolatry will do it no good.
There are two more things I need to say about homosexuality specifically. Regardless of the law, disease has a habit of following the practice. It may be why God wanted both man and animals killed. It was an effort to control the disease that had become common in the area. Can’t say for sure but I have heard the theory from those that know more than me, a lot more.
Besides, it is logical. It’s not just the disease that destroys the cities it abounds in but the immorality as well.
Secondly, what ever it is called, it is outside of marriage as God defines marriage. That, in itself makes it wrong, even if there were no passages at all directly concerning the practice.
Now, going back to that TV magazine, I wonder just what the motive was for them to conduct the interview. I wonder just how the interviewer is explaining it to God. For that matter, I wonder how that So-called chaplain is explaining his actions to God. As a leader, he will have far more to answer for.
However, I’m sure it was what the guy wanted. Otherwise, how in the world would he have talked himself into it, and then try to justify it with God’s word. Some folks want what they want, even when they know it’s wrong. Even when they know it leads to destruction.
Incidentally, what God put in his word is true and you can believe 100% of it.
Now I wonder. Do they even still have chaplains at colleges these days. We might be better off if we don’t, considering what this guy called truth.
There were a bunch men who were leaders with government intelligence agencies that claimed that the laptop was a fake by the Ruskies. They signed and made public a letter with their signatures. Later, it was determined they all lied. Now let me see. Does that mean we can trust our government or not?
As an aside, I tried to find the names of the folks that signed the letter so I could post them. Sorry. I can’t find them. I spent the last 20 minutes looking for them and I ran into one road block after the other. You think they might be trying to cover up the cover up. And the dems say that Nixon’s coverup was bad. Maybe that set of liars no longer want their names associated with the letter.
Fortunately, I have never needed a lawyer for anything other than simple run-of-the-mill things. However, I have seen them in action. I have been on juries and I have seen good lawyers and I have seen bad lawyers.
I neither can claim to be an expert on law nor on selecting lawyers. However, I do believe there are some things that are common sense. Right at the top, “how convincing is the man or woman?” One man stands up, speaks with authority and is easily heard from one end of the courtroom to the other while not shouting. Then another lawyer speaks timidly and so softly you have to be within three feet to hear him. Which lawyer will most likely be most convincing.
Lawyers go through a lot of schooling to become lawyers. The spend a lot of money and they put a lot of effort to complete the studies. Every man or woman that completes the studies and passes the bar has invested hours of study. Once he officially becomes a lawyer, he is allowed to argue cases before courts on behalf of their client. It is a trust that is given to a select few. While paralegals can prepare legal documents, the documents do not become legal until the lawyer presents them to the court as their work.
Yet, it would appear that all these colleges and schools seem to ignore one important one thing, how to talk to a jury. Basic acting. How to speak as if you know what you’re talking about. Most of all, speaking with enough volume that everyone in the courtroom can hear him.
I know. You think all this is moot, if I might borrow the legal term, with microphones and loudspeakers. This is not true. It is something of a strange thing, but it seems the electronics have even given the actors a false sense. Frequently, I have to turn my volume up on my TV because some actor thinks he is more convincing when he whispers. To be sure, in the days before microphones, the actors didn’t whisper and they were more convincing than many of the current actors.
My point is this. If you ever have to ask your lawyer to speak up so you can hear him, it is time to start looking for another lawyer. If he doesn’t speak as if he knows what he is talking about, even if he doesn’t, it’s time to find another lawyer. If a person on the jury ever starts leaning forward and cocking his ear to hear your lawyer, it’s time to find another lawyer. Finally, if you have a difficult time understanding your lawyer, it is time to find another lawyer. After all, your lawyer is, so to speak, your “mouth piece.”
As an aside, don’t you think it’s time for all law schools to require a few hours of public speaking? Apparently, right now, it isn’t even a suggestion.
I should have been a comedian. With just one word, I can make them laugh, well sometimes two. Let me explain, please. The wife and I walked into the restaurant and the young lady behind the counter, asked, “How are you?” I know. For the most part it was rhetorical. It’s a greeting. Most of the time people say, “Fine,” or nothing at all. Some will reply to the question with another, “Fine, how are you?”
I like to do things a little different. I like to reply as if she means the question. I said, “Hungry.”
Not only did the girl behind the counter burst into laughter but also the three other folks behind me. As usual, my wife got angry with me and chastised me verbally and loudly. That got another laugh. That’s right. we’re a good team.
Actually, I guess my wife is right. One of these days, some one is going to hit me. To be truthful, not everyone likes my humor. Some have scowled at me. One or two have actually yelled at me. I guess, one day someone will actually hit me. I don’t know.
From time to time I get a little brave. The man says, “Excuse me.” I reply, “I’ll try.” Usually, he laughs and we go our separate ways. Then, of course, my wife yells at me. “One of these days, someone who is a little unbalanced is going to haul off and hit you.”
Well, in the meantime, I will bring smiles to many. Sometimes, I will get a little laugh or two. I can’t help it. It’s in my nature. I just like to see people smile, even when it’s because they are laughing at me rather than with me. I especially consider myself successful when it takes just one word.
On the other hand there are those who like to use one word… to make people cry. It makes me wonder why people want to do that.
The small business owner was asked over and over why he didn’t computerize his business. He kept replying that he already made mistakes fast enough. He didn’t need the help of a computer to only make them faster.
There is some truth to story, even though someone likely made it up. Computers are fast. If you don’t do things right when you set up a computer, most likely, you will make the man’s words come true. And, I have seen it happen a number of times.
At one time, computers were big and expensive. Worse, they were slow. Well, they were fast but not nearly as fast as the computers today. So, even the big businesses had one computer and it was put in the hands of a few people.
The hitch is that the owners of the companies knew a lot about business, but little or nothing about computers. The salesman came along telling the owner of the business that the computer will solve all his problems, even some he doesn’t know about. Of course, no one mentioned that the computer salesman knew only slightly more than the owner of the business owner.
Worse yet, the salesman didn’t actually know what the owner of the business could use the computer for. With those three things being true, it amazed me that anyone got anything right. What I write, I have seen firsthand. However, more than that, I have read many articles in computer magazines that have said the same thing. Therefore, I think I can say with a reasonable amount of proof that I was not the only one to notice it.
So it is, that many computers were purchased to do things the computer was not intended for and those who knew how to use the computers couldn’t.
Then, in come the programmers, those who know how to make computers do what they do. Naturally, they got busy writing programs that served little or no purpose. Let’s face it, they have no idea what the users need the computer for so they make programs that they think will be useful.
Then the owners of the companies discovered something about computers that they liked. They served the purpose of “big brother.” They permitted the boss to look over the shoulders of those on the line doing the real job. Granted, it did help the company run a little more efficiently, but it would have run 3 times better if the computer would be used for their proper purpose.
I saw it all happen and it really rubbed me the wrong way. When I was in the Marines, they had computers keeping track of all I did. I also worked for two civilian companies that did the same. In the Marines I spent almost as much time looking up codes as I did doing the work.
Ask the doctors. They spend 10 minutes with a patient and he pays a secretary for 20 minutes work to make sure it gets documented right. Then, if it not documented right, Medicare or the insurance company kicks it back and the doc doesn’t get paid until it is documented right. And you wonder why it is that medical costs keep sky rocketing.
One of the biggest advantages of the PC is that it brought control of the computers to the folks who can really use them and they know what to use them for.
Well, that’s not totally true. If the owner turns his back for a minute, his employees get busy surfing the web or playing games. I heard of one company that had to send out a message for every one to stop watching the Super Bowl on the computers as it was slowing down internet response.
I only heard of the one instance, but I am sure it still happens a lot. Only now they use their phone instead of the businesses internet. Well, at least they can get their work done in between touchdowns.
How embarrassing. My last two posts had errors in the titles. I didn’t realize it until hours later. Yes it will hurt me. If I can’t take it, I ought not write posts. It’s better to make the corrections. And, yes I will thank you for it. And yes I will mean it.
That is unless we have a big inheritance, and soon. Not much time left.
Can’t complain. Well, I guess I could but it would be pointless. However, I have done my share of traveling.
Speaking of inheritance. If I had the money, I would really like to get a 25 foot travel trailer and and go from one end of this country to the other and from top to bottom. I’d love to visit every state, a few maybe twice. Well, I’m afraid that trailer would not go to Hawaii or Alaska. That’s alright. I’ve talked to people who have been to Hawaii and they said it was a lot like California. Besides, I have been in both states. We landed in Alaska for a while when I was on the way to Vietnam and Hawaii on the way back.
Of course part of it would be just so I will be able to say I’ve been everywhere. As an aside, I have already been in many states already. I have been from one end of Interstate 40 to the other. Hence, I have been in all all the states it goes through. Also, I have been in Nevada and Kansas. Even spent some time there. I’m in no hurry to return. They both have miles and miles of miles and miles and not much more. Also. Just happened to think; I was in Syracuse for 10 weeks; Illinois for a few weeks and Pennsylvania for quite a while. That is a state I would love to revisit, especially in the Quaker area. God really put some good landscaping in there. Makes me think it would have been good to have settled there instead of here.
Regardless, it would be nice to stop any time or place I want to stop or go when I get ready to go. It has been a dream most of my life.
Normally, I prefer to wait a week or two after a shooting to say anything about it. I prefer to avoid the appearance of trying to profit from it. However, very carefully, I do think a short statement might be good.
Someone said that President Trump should move to indoor venues. In a way, I hate that. It would mean that the shooter profited from his effort. He has altered the way that Trump campaigns. It would also limit the size of the crowds. I really hate to say this, but I suggest in this case, it would be a good idea to let this murderer and those that would cheer him on to have their little bit of success.
Moreover, I would hope President Trump would agree with me. You see, It’s not just his own life he is risking. One supporter was killed and two more were badly wounded. Therefore, for the safety of those that support him, he needs to take a little more caution in the future.
I feel I should wait a couple of weeks to say more. I need to wait for all the facts to come out and I need to wait for things to calm down so that I can maintain a little more objectivity. I’m not a fan of those who would like to profit from shootings before the barrels of the guns cool.
I’d make it less modern.
I’m not ready for coed restrooms, women in combat, profanity on radio and TV… I think you get my point.
bfrhodes99 