An Actual Friggin Miracle

This is a story told in two parts... strap in, it's a great ride. And I'll MAKE YOU believe in miracles. We bought a new house, our first together, in June 2021, and move in at the end of July 2021. The previous owner was an elderly gentleman who vacated in Feb 2021 and moved to another state. He left behind an installed, though not 'running' burglar alarm system. The little panel in the kitchen had green lights and there were some sensors around the house, but though it was powered on, there was no service being paid for -- it was just there. If someone broke in and tripped the sensors, some lights would flash, but no police were alerted, no monitoring company was under contract. We thought little of this unused and unimportant feature at the time, focused as we were on getting our things unpacked and situated, and adding to the property (i.e., installing a fence for the backyard so the dogs could finally run around outside)... we landscaped, we decorated, we forgot about the alarm system. One day, those pretty green lights started to turn red. Angry red. Little beeping noises were occasionally heard. We didn't have any codes left for us by the previous owner, nor any way to get in touch with him. I pressed some buttons almost at random, and the ugly red lights stopped. For now. This little cycle repeated for abot 6 months, every few weeks or so. Until... Until the thing got mad. Apparently there was some sort of 'extra' piece installed with this alarm system, a small bullhorn aimed outside, toward the neighborhood, which (when activated) would let out an ACTUAL ear-screeching alarm throughout the neighborhood. This bullhorn, a small megaphone, was situated in a crawlspace above our attached garage; once I got up there on a ladder and peered through the crawlspace 'door' in the garage ceiling, I could SEE the bullhorn, attached by wires, clear on the OTHER side of the garage from the crawlspace entrance. After a few minutes, the screehcing of the bullhorn stopped. Side note: This happened about a half-dozen times, each time lasting 4-5 full minutes. NOT ONE NEIGHBOR ever called the police, knocked on our door, or otherwise gave any indication they heard this massive loud alarm at all. By the sixth time this happened, I had enough. Both my wife and I work from home, and take cigarette breaks together in the garage. Were doing so one September 2022 morning, about 10:30a, when the bullhorn went off, and so did I. Ladder up, I went into the crawlspce, intent on crawling across the ceiling and tearing that bullhorn from its wiring with my teeth. The garage ceiling is constructed of drywall and wood beams. Nothing more. I thought I could leverage my weight on the beams -- after all, SOMEONE did to install the damned bullhorn, right? Predictabkly, I was wrong. I made it about halfway across the ceiling, maybe 7-8 feet, before falling through the garage ceiling. Now, I didn't go all the way to the floor... somehow I managed to arrest my descent by wrapping my upper-left arm tightly around one of the wooden beams (essentially dropping myself on it with my full weight) and dangled from the ceiling helplessly, until my wife dragged the ladder over and gingerly climbed down. As I surveyed the desctruction, I noticed the giant bruise on my left bicep (and lower right leg), and was in a lot of pain. It took my a few months, but when the swelling all went down in my arm and shoulder area, I decided to see a doctor to ascertain any real damage I might have done. A local handyman came and fixed the garage ceiling AND, for an extra fee (at my insistence), he brought me the bullhorn as well, so I could drink bourbon from the skull of my enemy. I told you THAT story to tell you THIS story. As I said, strap in. I knew nothing was broken in my arm or shoulder. I knew I needed an MRI to determine the extent and type of injury. But doctors have a path they follow... first, X-ray, then MRI. So off to Urgent Care I went in mid-November for an X-ray, which predictably showed nothing. Next I saw an orthopedist who ordered an MRI for what he believe was a strained pectoral tendon (and he was right), but the MRI also showed a very, very large mass in my left lung, it seemed. Next doctor's step? CT scan with contrast to confirm (really to figure out what the heck the mass was). The mass shown by the CT scan, was actually an aortic aneurysm, in a very odd place at the top of the aorta. A gigantic aneurysm, over 9cm in diameter and three inches long. The edges of the aneurysm showed calcification, marking it was a VERY old one -- growing for literally decades. Further testing and inspection determined that all of the tissue and organs around the aneurysm were all healthy, indicating this was NOT caused by decades of smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc. Investigation determined that the aneurysm was caused by an IMPACT directly to that spot on my chest... you know where the spot it? Exactly where a seatbelt crosses your body on the driver's side of the car. I had a front impact collision back in 1992, a bad one which totalled the car; the difference between this accident and the many others I had back then, was that I smashed my head on the steering wheel, and even had a bruise there the next morning. During that impact I must have also been restrained by the seatbelt in a very strong, hard way, though I felt nothing at the time. When the CT scan showed the aneurysm in Decmeber, I was scheduled for surgery in January, which was carried out by two teams -- a cardiothoracic team and a vascular team. Six hours of surgery to install a stent designed to cut of the blood flow to the aneurysm, to starve it of blood and let it wither and die. It was the least-invasive method that could've been chosen, and I couldn't be happier with my doctors and the heroic effort they expended on my behalf. I spent four WIDE AWAKE days in the ICU, with people checking on my every single hour, and was released on the fourth day to go home. If we didn't discover that aneurysm, it would've burst and killed me instantly. It was already nearly TWICE the size where an aneurysm is considered a danger to burst. It's a miracle that we found it at all. It's an actual friggin miracle that I'm still alive.

The Anthem and the Kneelers

Today, President Trump disinvited the Philadelphia Eagles from visiting the White House to celebrate their Super Bowl victory. He did so after reports circulated that the majority of black Eagles' players would not attend such a ceremony.

Full Text of the President's Letter

While I believe President Trump is acting in a childish manner, I also believe the players and the Eagles' owner, Jeffrey Lurie, are as well.

Here's the thing...
The players insist that the issue isn't with the anthem, and that they are justified in using the anthem as a platform to express their feelings (about the social issue du jour).
But it IS about the anthem, absolutely. They made it about the anthem.
The players could have chosen a million other times and places to express their views, but they chose to do so in a very visible way during the singing of the anthem at the beginning of games. Even after being told by millions of fans that this method of 'protest' was disrespectful and unwelcome, they continued to do so. When President Trump echoed this same sentiment to the players, they decided to jump on the media narrative that he's "racist" and "doesn't care about black people" and on and on. They now had a face to target with their displeasure, rather than simply the faceless millions who disagreed with their decision.

Whether you agree or disagree with the issues the players raised is irrelevant.
Their protests are NOT related to the First Amendment to the Constitution, and are NOT protected speech. Imagine you are out to dinner, and the waitress decides to stand on your table and denounce abortion activists.
Whether you agree or disagree with her stance doesn't matter; what matters is that she WILL lose her job forthwith, because 'protesting' at the workplace is not protected speech. This is SCOTUS-settled law.

The players made the issue about the anthem, and they chose to take on not only the President, but the millions of fans aligned against them for doing so. NFL ratings have dropped steadily since the start of the protests, and this is well-documented fact.

We're tired of being told that these social justice warriors know better than the rest of us.
We're tired of having this divisive lunacy shoved down our throats at every turn.
We're tired of being told we are racists because we don't agree with the method(s) of protest used by the 'aggrieved' who think they are the descendants of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, but really are nothing more than 1960's era rabble-rousers.

We're done.

Love is a Verb

My wife says, "I love you."
And I jokingly ask, "How did you love me today?"

Yes, I'm joking, because I'm gently prodding her to think about what she said, and she knows this. It's worth asking, because 'love' is a verb.

Love is the will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's growth... Love is as love does. Love is an act of will -- namely, both an intention and an action. Will also implies choice. We do not have to love. We choose to love.

To love is to act, consciously, for the betterment of another person in some way. "This is how I loved you today: I brought you dinner. I cleaned up a mess I knew bothered you. I kept the dogs quiet, so you could enjoy a book in silence."

Of all the misconceptions about love, the most powerful (and pervasive) is the belief that "falling in love" is love -- or at least a manifestation of love. It is a potent misconception, because falling in love is subjectively experienced, in a very powerful way, as an experience of love. When a person falls in love what they feel is: "I love him" or "I love her."

The experience of "falling in love" is specifically a sex-linked experience.
We do not fall in love with our children or our parents, even though we may love them very deeply.
We do not fall in love with our friends, even though we may care for them very much.
We fall in love only when we are sexually motivated, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Falling in love is not an act of will, as it is not a conscious choice. No matter how open to it, or eager for it, we may be -- the experience may still elude us. The experience may capture us at times when we are definitely not seeking it, when it is inconvenient and even undesirable. We are as likely to fall in love with someone with whom we are obviously ill-matched as with someone more suitable. Discipline and will can only control the experience; they cannot create it. We can choose how to respond to the experience of falling in love, but we cannot choose the experience itself.

The experience of falling in love is invariably temporary. No matter with whom we fall in love, we sooner or later fall "out" of love. That feeling of lovingness that characterizes the experience of falling in love always passes. The honeymoon always ends. The bloom of romance always fades.

When the honeymoon of "falling in love" ends, and when the bloom is off the rose, that's when we are ready to love. That's when we put aside our unconscious desires, and embrace our conscious will: To love someone.

Diversity is Nonsense

Diversity... is nonsense.

Great leaders do NOT demand 'diversity', They demand excellence. They don't give a damn what color, nationality, gender, or religion is claimed by their workers and staff. They simply want excellence, and are willing to provide their people with the tools and resources necessary to achieve that end.

Great leaders understand that how something LOOKS to some leftist who purports to care about that garbage is NOT as important as producing results. Period. Humanity has managed to produce great leaders throughout its history who NEVER gave a moment's thought to idiotic concepts like "diversity" -- and we remember them and their achievements anyway.

Can one of you fathom General George Patton, at the Battle of the Bulge, checking to make sure he had a proper mix of Protestants, Jews, and Episcopalians in his attack brigade?? We can scroll down the list of such great leaders, and we will find that NONE of them cared about this nonsense. Golda Meir, Nelson Mandela, Teddy Roosevelt, even MOSES -- the list is endless. Did Moses check and make sure he had the requisite number of Egyptians before leaving Egypt?

"Diversity" is a politically-correct buzzword to make leftist white people who feel guilty about their skin tone FEEL better about themselves, while accomplishing absolutely nothing. It FEELS good to pontificate from on high that YOU know better than someone else how many Chinese immigrants ought to be on their team -- and how they should be deployed; or how many women, or how many blacks, or how many one-legged atheists with psoriasis, and so on... It's a neat scam, because it never ends! A great leader knows this, and doesn't care. All they care about is excellence, and whomever will help them achieve excellence will always have a place on their team.

If the best person for the job is a woman, hire her.
If the best person for the job has dark skin, hire them.
If the best person for the job is in a wheelchair, hire them.
If the best person for the job is homosexual, hire them.

You can never go wrong by hiring the best-qualified person for the job, without thought or weight given to all of the myriad 'outside' factors that the left insists are important.

We have known this since humans first roamed the Earth, and in the name of political correctness, we have insisted on forgetting it.

Religion and Morality in Government

It seems to me that prayer (and religion) within the fabric of American society produced the most powerful nation on Earth. Only in the last few decades has this come into question -- and I defy anyone to tell me that this nation's moral fiber is stronger for it.

For nearly two centuries people would recoil in utter shock if a woman uttered profanity; now we see it on prime-time television (along with most of her anatomy).

For nearly two centuries, it was understood that this country was founded upon those tenets introduced by religion, while never endorsing any religion above any other (though slight deference was always -- and still is -- paid to Christian denominations; hence our federal holiday of Christmas, for example).

By and large, it was believed for centuries that children who were taught religion in some form would grow up to be moral adults. We ALL know of the exceptions to this rule, but up until the 1960s this country was predicated on that very idea, and successfully so.

Read quotes from almost any of the Founding Fathers, from almost any president, up until that time (and a very few after, like Reagan); read the school texts, the newspaper articles. It was a simpler time, a happier time, and a far more moral time. While we can discuss some of the relative advantages or disadvantages of the influence of religion throughout American history, I believe wholeheartedly that the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Our coins reflect a belief in the Almighty; our government bodies always began sessions with a prayer; the Ten Commandments used to be taught to every schoolchild, and posted in every courtroom.

Now, all of that said: Religion has no place in government. But religion does provide the moral basis for determining one's actions. If you hear someone is a Christian, for example, you can be reasonably sure (whether you admit it or not) that the person is honest and trustworthy, even if you don't share their beliefs. You may be wrong about them, of course, but generally-speaking it's a safe belief to have.

In my view, that's why so many voters want someone with a long tradition of being religious, particularly when considering a President: Their level of religious conviction provides a roadmap for determining their future actions. Not 100% -- not completely -- but when a person has been raised without religion, you sense they are also without conviction... without morals, principles, or ethics.

Naturally, being raised within a religion in no way guarantees the outcome of the individual. We can each cite a litany of people whom we know personally, or whom we have elected, who were less-than-perfect (or who acted in ways contrary to the principles and beliefs of their religion). As I said: It's not a perfect indicator of character, but a general one; if you told me that ten candidates for office were Christian, I would wager a great sum that at least nine of them were decent, moral people.

Eminent Domain and Property Rights

This is going to be a rather lengthy article, so strap in or move on. I consider the topic to be of utmost concern and a worthy discussion both for business owners and for private citizens.

Bret Baier's interview with Donald Trump touched on the topic of Eminent Domain, and as I heard portions of it replayed on the radio, I had flashbacks to the Kelo v New London case.

Americans today have very few -- if any -- property rights left to them.

Whether the property under discussion is a business, a home, a vehicle, or even your own person, our rights to what we want to do with our property have eroded to the point where we cannot even identify what we're "allowed" to do to them, or with them, without a law degree. The Constitution's Fifth Amendment is most often associated with courtrooms, where Americans are permitted to avoid self-incrimination by invoking their right to remain silent ("plead the Fifth") during all interactions with police and courts. I'm simplifying this concept for brevity's sake, because there is another part to that Amendment which is important for this discussion (in bold below):

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

There are two principles in play here: Government taking your property, and government dictating what you're allowed to do with your property. The founding idea was that government would take your property only if it needed to do so in order to serve a public use, like building a road or a fort. You, as the property owner, would receive 'just compensation' -- commonly understood as 'market value' -- for that property (paid by tax dollars). That definition of public use has morphed into something called public good, which can be defined as politicians see fit to define it. Maybe a public good is served by demolishing the homes of poor people in order to build a shopping mall, on the theory that the tax revenue such a mall would generate for the community would far exceed the tax revenue paid by the poor homeowner. That was the basis for the Kelo decision, and Trump seems to think it's great.

It's not. It's an abomination.

The idea that a person can OWN something is built into the fabric of America, and provides the basis for a great deal of both law and custom. Your home is your sanctuary, your 'castle', and your ownership thereof is supposed to be considered sacrosanct -- police are allowed to enter your home only under specific, proscribed circumstances for that very reason. But now government gets to decide whether you are allowed to keep your home, or whether a more-favored member of a particular constituency should be allowed to have it instead. Can you imagine how this power could be used in the future, if it is permitted to continue unchecked...?

A particular section of Philadelphia is affectionately called the Gayborhood. This is NOT a pejorative, this is a name given by the residents of the area. There are maps, lists of restaurants and stores, and even an app to help you navigate the Gayborhood should you decide to visit. What if some enterprising anti-gay people got together and decided that the land could be put to some 'better' use; got a few politicians together to approve the plan; and, with the power of the courts, moved all of the gay people out? Would that be an acceptable use of Eminent Domain?

That's the danger of allowing government too much power over our property: One day, they may decide that they know how it should be used better than you do, and you won't be able to fight it.

Government ought not be able to take your property except in extraordinary circumstances, and then only for government use (i.e., to build a road or a fort). Government overreach doesn't stop with the taking of your property, as it has quite a lot to say about your own use of that property, too. At its heart, government believes that it has the right to dictate to you what you are and are not allowed to do with your property, or on your property, because government does not believe that you are the owner. Regardless of what the title or deed might say about the subject.

If you think you have the right to dig for oil on property that you 'own' - try that sometime, without permits and licenses and permission. I think the local Sheriff will take you aside for a chat. That means that you are not sovereign over your land; you do not, in actuality, 'own' it - and hence you do not have the right to act as you wish upon it, because it is not your property. The government believes that it owns the property, proven thus by the requirement to apply for permits and licenses for the privilege of drilling for oil. And because these permits and licenses are written forms of permission for you to act in a certain manner, they may be denied or revoked - and their provisions enforced, as the Sheriff will no doubt explain, with the threat of force and/or imprisonment.

You can easily find myriad examples of this sort of governmental tyranny against citizens for daring to act upon 'their' property.

* The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fined one landowner $300,000 for "destroying" wetlands, because he cleared a backed-up drainage ditch on his property.
* The Fish & Wildlife Service told one landowner he couldn't use 1,000 acres of his property, so the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker could have a place to dwell.
* Another owner was prevented from clearing dry brush near his home to make a firebreak, because it would disturb the Stephens kangaroo rat.
* Building a deck on his house brought one owner a $30,000 fine for casting a shadow on wetlands. A shadow.

Smoking bans are another violation of private property rights. If a person owns a restaurant, it is (supposed to be) his right to decide whether or not he will permit smoking within its walls. If a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, he might put up a "Smoking Permitted" sign and let customers decide for themselves whether they wish to enter and patronize the business. Similarly, if an owner declined to permit smoking, he might put up a "No Smoking" sign and let customers decide for themselves on that basis.

A restaurant owner who did not permit smoking would see it as a violation of his property rights if a coalition used the political arena to create legislation forcing him to permit smoking, right? It is no less a violation of property rights the other way around.

Wake up, America. People like Trump are all around you, and you need to understand what they want, and why they want it. Read, research, learn for yourself what property rights ARE, and why you don't have as many as you think you do. Not over your home, your land, your car, or even your body.

How Does it Make You Feel?

It's a strange thing... people have weird power over us sometimes, whether we implicitly or explicitly grant them that power. They have the power to affect your emotions on a deep level. As a rule I believe that emotions follow actions -- if you want to feel loving, then act loving, by way of example. If you rant and rave about how mad you are at your father, you will gradually get more and more mad at your father. You get more of what you feed, and your emotions followed your actions.

I've come to understand this is not a universal truth. There are times we feel something we don't want to. I'm not referring to the slight blues you might slip into when you hear a moving ballad that reminds you of a long-lost love (though that is a valid example); that's 'light' and passes somewhat quickly. The next song on the radio could something toe-tapping and upbeat, and your mood tends to follow suit.

I'm thinking of deeper emotions. Sometimes I'll perform a wedding ceremony well, where my couple is happy and lets me know it in no uncertain terms. This brings me joy, and pride. Maybe they sent a 'Thank You' card a couple of weeks after the wedding -- out of the clear blue they made my day! They made me feel something, without my input or approval. Of course in this instance, I'm glad they did! But isn't it a strange thing? The euphoria lasts much longer than the aforementioned blues, and is harder to affect by something outside. Didn't you ever feel like you were on Cloud Nine, and nothing could touch you? That's what I mean.

Such feelings don't go only in the positive direction, either, but also the negative. Your mother forgot your birthday? That's harsh. You can work around the hurt and the disappointment, but it's there, and it's difficult to overcome. You could use my 'emotions follow actions' theory, but if your mother doesn't live nearby, that can be problematic to put into practice.

And let's face it: Sometimes we want to hurt, and keep hurting. Not out of a sense of self-pity, or to garner attention, but sometimes just to remember that we are able to hurt. And what it feels like. We think that we should 'forgive and forget' in order to stop the hurt, because people generally think of forgiveness as the flip-side of contrition; the obligatory response to an apology. It is not. To forgive is to answer the call of our better angels, and bear our wounds as the cost of doing business. It is that rarest of things: Simple and pure. Transcendent. Without strings.

And difficult as hell.