Esoteric Meandering Shouting Into the Void

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Have we finally let go of a war that we waged against our own 160 years ago? I know there is still systemic racism, and I am afraid that I won’t see that go away in my lifetime. Sports teams and Stadiums and States are finally relinquishing their flying the Confederate Flag which is very positive although there has been uproar from the southern heritage groups.

The step toward abandoning the idolization of the confederacy this is finally happening is that the U.S. military is finally renaming bases that were named after confederate generals. I was in the Army in the 80s and could never figure out why we had Bases named for people that waged war against the United States.

To be sure not many Americans follow history and probably didn’t realize that some military bases were named after confederates. Here is a list of the Bases and their new names as of this year.

There are/were nine major U.S. military bases named in honor of Confederate military leaders, all in former Confederate States that will be renamed before the end of 2023:

• Fort Benning (1917), near Columbus, Georgia, named for Confederate General Henry L. Benning is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Moore on 11 May 2023 in honor of General Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore
• Fort Bragg (1918), in North Carolina, named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Liberty on 2 June 2023 in honor of Liberty
• Fort Gordon (1917), near Augusta, Georgia, named for Confederate General John Brown Gordon is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Eisenhower in late 2023 in honor of president Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Fort A.P. Hill (1941), near Bowling Green, Virginia, named for Confederate General A. P. Hill is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Walker in late 2023 in honor of Medal of Honor recipient and army surgeon Dr. Mary Edwards Walker
• Fort Hood (1942), in Killeen, Texas, formerly named after Confederate General John Bell Hood, is live-streaming the redesignation ceremony for Fort Cavazos at 9AM on 9 May 2023 in honor of General Richard Cavazos (closed event)
• Fort Lee (1917), in Prince George County, Virginia, named after Confederate General Robert E. Lee was redesignated Fort Gregg-Adams on 27 April 2023 in honor of Lieutenant General Arthur J. Gregg and Lieutenant Colonel Charity Adams
• Fort Pickett (1942), near Blackstone, Virginia, a Virginia National Guard installation named for Confederate General George Pickett was officially redesignated Fort Barfoot on 24 March 2023 in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Van T. Barfoot
• Fort Polk (1941), near Leesville, Louisiana, named for Episcopal bishop and Confederate general Leonidas Polk is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Johnson on 13 June 2023, in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Sergeant William Henry Johnson
• Fort Rucker (1942), in Dale County, Alabama, named for Confederate colonel Edmund Rucker, was officially redesignated Fort Novosel on 10 April 2023 in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Novosel

As someone who served and was stationed on a number of these bases, I have happy that the names are changing even though I will still unfortunately revert to the pre 2023 renaming because its human nature to remember the moniker that has been used for decades.

I am just waiting for the kerfuffle from the South will rise again crowd opposing the name changes but for now I can applaud that was a nation we are finally at least trying to move forward.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Who would have thought that the incompetence of the Trump Presidency and that blatant hypocrisy of the current House of Representatives would have so many reading the constitution. Hate to admit or relish the fact that I am one of them.

The current Squeaker of the House Kevin McCarthy seems intent on destroying the U.S. and world economy by defaulting on our debt by refusing to raise the Debt Ceiling unless draconian cuts ae made to the current budget that will hurt those most in need of assistance. This current House Majority seems to not understand that the debt limit is only paying for bills already incurred. McCarthy wants to use the child with a credit card comparison while not acknowledging that he and his party are the children. Even if that analogy did fit, they are proposing taking the credit card away but refusing to pay the charges that have already been incurred.

I think it is humorous that the party the claims to be strict constitutionalist haven’t read the document and seemingly don’t realize that there is an amendment that can stop them in their preverbal tracks.

XIV Amendment Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

That section, historians say, was added because of fears that if former Confederate states were to regain political power in Congress, lawmakers might repudiate federal debts and guarantee Confederate debt. Reconstructionist Republicans also thought that the clause would discourage loans to future insurrectionists.

The important part of this section, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” This says to me that an arbitrary debt ceiling is unconstitutional based on this amendment.

 In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments. The debt ceiling, in which an aggregate limit is applied to nearly all federal debt, was substantially established by Public Debt Acts passed in 1939 and 1941 and subsequently amended. This limit has been routinely increased without cause except in 2013 and currently.

In 2013 Members of the Republican Party in Congress opposed raising the debt ceiling, which had been routinely raised previously on a bipartisan basis without conditions, without additional spending cuts. They refused to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama would have defunded the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), his signature legislative achievement. The US Treasury began taking extraordinary measures to enable payments, and stated that it would delay payments if funds could not be raised through extraordinary measures, and the debt ceiling was not raised. During the crisis, approval ratings for the Republican Party declined. The crisis ended on October 17, 2013 with the passing of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, although debate continues about the appropriate level of government spending, and the use of the debt ceiling in such negotiations.

This GOP wants:

Cap budget increases

The GOP bill limits increases in the federal budget to 1% per year, significantly slower than the rate of inflation and less than recent year-over-year budget increases, particularly since the pandemic. That isn’t likely to fly with Democrats, as it necessarily means cuts to discretionary spending. 

Impose work requirements for federal aid

The GOP bill imposes stricter work requirements to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding, formerly known as food stamps, for childless adults. The bill also requires each state to collect and submit information to the federal government about the percentage of people enrolled in SNAP who are in unsubsidized employment, as well as the median earning of people who were work-eligible after they exit the program. 

Rescind IRS funding

The Republican plan would also nix $80 million in additional IRS funding, including funding for thousands more agents, that was made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act. Republicans passed a bill to eliminate those additional positions before, but the bill died in the Senate. 

Recoup unspent pandemic relief funds

The Republican legislation recoups unspent federal COVID-19 relief funds approved in the American Rescue Plan and emergency relief packages passed in the final months of the Trump administration. While most of the money has been spent, Republicans — many of whom have long railed against the massive influx of federal spending — believe clawing back the remaining funds can help balance federal coffers. 

“The American people are tired of politicians who use COVID as an excuse for more extreme inflationary spending,” McCarthy said on the House floor Wednesday. “Now, if this money was authorized to fight the pandemic was not spent during the pandemic, it should not be spent after the pandemic is over.”

Unwind Biden’s student loan forgiveness program

Republicans’ bill would nullify Mr. Biden’s program forgiving student loan debt up to $20,000 per borrower. Under the plan, announced by the president last August, eligible borrowers can have up to $10,000 in student debt wiped clean, while qualifying Pell Grant recipients can have an additional $10,000 forgiven. The program has been on hold as legal challenges have made their way through the courts.

Roughly 40 million Americans are eligible for the relief. Mr. Biden extended a pause on federal student loan payments, first put in place by Trump in the early months of the pandemic, through June.

Separate from House Republicans’ effort to unwind the student loan forgiveness program, two challenges to the plan are pending before the Supreme Court. The justices are expected to issue a decision, which could invalidate the program, by the end of June.

Repeal provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law by Mr. Biden last year and is Democrats’ marquee health care, tax and climate bill. The $740 billion package passed with only Democratic support.

Republicans now want to rescind key aspects of the law that were designed to combat climate change, including provisions establishing a high-efficiency electric home rebate program and home energy efficiency contractor training grants.

Implement Republicans’ signature energy bill

Included in the debt limit package is H.R. 1, the “Lower Energy Costs Act.” The legislation aims to boost American energy production and decrease dependency on foreign oil. The plan seeks to quicken the permitting process for energy and infrastructure projects and increase oil and gas production and sales.

It also includes a provision that prohibits the energy secretary from implementing any rules that would “directly or indirectly limit” consumer access to gas kitchen ranges and ovens. 

So, the GOP is holding the country hostage unless President Biden and the Democrats scrap any improvement that they have already made and promise not to help average citizens or reduce the impacts of climate change in the future.

I say pull the XIV Amendment card and tell Mc ‘DumbAss’ and his ilk to pound sand and continue to pay our bills. Then point out to them that of the debt their guy with their help is responsible for 25% of the total bill was created in 4 years.  

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/king-charles-coronation-live-updates-rcna80824

Today was the day of King Charles III coronation and the world watched as a new chapter in British history begins. Charles surely will not have the reign that his mother Queen Elizabeth II had. Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 at the age of 27 after the passing of her father King George VI and her reign end with her death in September of 2022, she was Queen for nearly 70 years. Charles was 5 years old when his mother became Queen. We can all do math even if Charles lives to the same age as his mother that only gives him 21 years as King. His first-born William is next in line for the throne, he was born in 1982 and if Charles does live to see 96 years of age that will make William a King in his 60’s.

In the current British government monarch, the King, takes little direct part in government. The authority to use the sovereign’s formal powers is almost all delegated, either by statute or by convention, to ministers or officers of the Crown, or other public bodies. At this point in history the Royal family of England really has ceremonial function although they do remain one of the wealthiest families in the world.

Charles is the latest in the line of Tudors going back to King Henry VII. There have been questions in the family line since Henry VII really made his own connection to the crown by circumventing a previous line of succession.

Henry became King of England because he defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field and declared himself king. His claim to the English throne by blood was weak.

Henry was a nephew of the previous Lancastrian king, Henry VI, but they were related not by Henry V’s bloodline, but by Catherine of Valois’ second marriage to Owen Tudor. Catherine of Valois had been Queen consort of England as the wife of Henry V, but after Henry’s death her affair with Owen Tudor, who was probably appointed keeper of Catherine’s household or wardrobe, led to the birth of Henry VII’s father, Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond. There is no evidence that Owen and Catherine were ever married, making Henry VII’s claim to the throne as a legitimate heir even more tenuous.

This is all ancient history but to me it has always been fascinating how a royal line was defined and some ‘noble’ families feel and felt like it was their divine right to rule.

With that note of history let’s recognize the newly crowned King of England Charles III.  

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

A common misconception is that Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of Mexico’s independence from Spain, but Mexico’s Independence Day is Sept. 16. May 5, rather, honors Mexico’s unlikely victory over France in the 1862 Battle of Puebla, where Mexican forces were largely outnumbered.

For Mexico, it was like the biblical battle of David and Goliath.

While Mexico’s President at the time, Benito Juarez, declared Cinco De Mayo a national holiday, Mexico’s Independence Day, Sept. 16th, remains a much more important holiday south of the border.

UCLA researchers say Cinco De Mayo’s popularity in the U.S. began in California during our own civil war in the 1860s as a response to the resistance against continued European efforts to colonize Latin America.

It also tied in with support of the Union in the U.S. Civil War.

It then became an important symbol to the Chicano movement which began in California in the 1940s and eventually spread across the country.

Finally, Cinco De Mayo became a party holiday in the U.S. starting in the 1970s and ’80s when beer companies began marketing to our nation’s growing Latino and Spanish-speaking population.

May the 5^th in the United States is as significant as March 17^th, why you ask… because its one more excuse for Americans to drink and act the fool and demonstrate their innate prejudice of another culture.

What do Americans do on Cinco De Mayo? Wear sombreros, drink Corona’s and Tequila and eat tacos.

What do Americans do on St Patrick’s day? Wear green, drink green beer and eat corned beef and cabbage.

Not all Mexican’s wear sombreros, drink Tequila and Mexican beer and eat Tacos, just like not all Irish are redheads’ drunks. I know the holidays are in good fun, but neither are really celebrated in the countries that Americans attribute them to.

There are other holidays around the world but here in the United States we choose to ignore them. Does anyone know what Boxing Day is? It is a day that is recognized in many other places but seemingly completely ignored here in the States.

Boxing Day is a holiday celebrated after Christmas Day, occurring on the second day of Christmastide (26 December). Though it originated as a holiday to give gifts to poor people, today Boxing Day forms part of Christmas celebrations, with many people choosing to take advantage of Boxing Day sales. It originated in Great Britain and is celebrated in several countries that previously formed part of the British Empire. The attached bank holiday or public holiday may take place on 28 December if necessary to ensure it falls on a weekday. Boxing Day is also concurrent with the Christian festival Saint Stephen’s Day.

In parts of Europe, such as several regions of Spain, he Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, and Ireland, 26 December is Saint Stephen’s Day, which is considered the second day of Christmas.

This would seem to be a day we would acknowledge since per capita we are the wealthiest nation on earth. Why isn’t this a day we celebrate or participate in? Probably because it is more about giving and not drinking or exploiting stereotypes.

I am not suggesting that we should stop celebrating obscure holidays that really are not important in their ‘countries of origin”.  I am, although, implying that reinforcing stereotypes isn’t the best way to endear yourself to a culture you are pretending to celebrate.

Maybe this year incorporate Boxing Day into your holiday tradition and reach out to someone in need. Have your drinking days but one day a year think about someone outside yourself and celebrate a new holiday.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/5/3/23702464/child-labor-laws-youth-migrants-work-shortage

I wrote once already about how Arkansas and their new Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is rolling back age requirements to hire 14-year-olds but sadly that’s not the only state that’s wants to harken back to the good old days of child labor.

Republican law makers are trying to reduce the age from 18 down to 14 to 16 years olds in dangerous industries like logging and meat processing plants. Wisconsin is trying to allow hiring of 14-year-olds to serve alcohol in restaurants, those children could not work behind the bar, but they would be allowed to serve patrons alcohol if they were seated at a table.

In the News today a McDonalds in Kentucky was found to have two workers that were 10-year-olds, and these children were working as late as 2am. Three McDonald’s franchisees cited in the investigation owns a total of 62 locations across Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland and Ohio, and were found to employ 305 children working more than legally permitted hours and performing job tasks prohibited by law for their age. The investigation found the franchisees employed 14- and 15-year-olds who were working outside of and over the number of hours minors are permitted to work and exceeding the daily and weekly limits – including cases where the workers were on the job during school hours.

The Republican Law makers that are trying to reduce age requirements claim is that there is a worker shortage and allowing children as young as 14 would fill the worker gap. I am going to have to call BULL SHIT on their claim, there are worker out there willing to work but employers aren’t willing to pay a living wage. My assumption is that these places that want to hire children want them because they know that they presumably live at home, and they can pay them subpar wages. I mean why would you pay a person $15 an hour, which no one can survive on, when you can exploit a child for $10 an hour or less.

This is exploitation at its core, the same reason that employers put help wanted adds in Mexico because they know that they can pay those workers less and they won’t or can’t say anything about it. My big question with children as young as 10 working at a McDonalds is where are their parents? Even kids that are 14-year-olds, where are their parents? Are all these orphans, or runaways that are prime to be exploited?

Republican continually accuse other of grooming children by subjecting them to men that are dress as women and reading them stories… anyone remember Mrs. Doubtfire. These are the same law makers that want children as young as 14 to enter the labor market. Same law makers that turn a blind eye while children are molested. Same law makers that want to make it easier to get a gun. All they are concerned about is the illusion that they are pious but really only care about the monetary engine that fuels their greed and need for power.

Let children be children. Employers pay a wage that an adult can survive and thrive on and trust me there would be a labor shortage.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-shooting-cleveland-greg-abbott-b2331075.html

I seriously don’t know what else to say about the gun epidemic in this country, but Texas seems to what to redefine the rules of logic. Five people where shot dead including a 9-year-old boy because a man was asked to shop firing his gun so a baby could sleep. Has the level of discourse gotten so bad that murder is the response to a civil request? I suppose that is a stupid question especially in Texas where a barista could get gunned down for pronouncing a customer’s name wrong. No that has happened yet, as far as I know, but just wait, I would not be surprised.

To make the execution of a family worse, Governor Abbott came out and immediately portraying both shooter and victims as illegal. Let’s place blame on a group and not address the real issue that anyone, in Texas, can purchase any firearm they want and as many as they want. Texan’s and Arizona’s constantly cry about the Mexican cartels coming into their states and killing people. Guess what sniveling crybabies those ‘criminals’ you are afraid of got their guns from Texas and Arizona because they can’t buy them in Mexico. Does anyone see a correlation or is it just me?

The Republicans and their constant deifying of guns and twisting of what they say is their Constitutional right have turned this nation into a war zone unfortunately most of the causalities of their war are unarmed and children. I was one that thought that in 2012 at Sandy Hook when 2^nd graders were mowed down things would change. Hell, no there was a black man in the White House and that was a bigger threat than dead children. Ten years later at Rob Elementary in Uvalde TX more children were murdered, and some had to be identified by DNA. What did we get, Thoughts & Prayers, because that always helps.

I am screaming out to Millennials and Gen Z, please fix this my generation is obviously incapable of solving this problem. I do not want my son to be afraid to go to college or to a park, a concert, a movie theater or to ask someone for directions for fear of being shot and killed. I was taught as a kid that sticks and stones could break my bones, but words would never hurt me, that isn’t true anymore because an ASS HOLE with a gun could kill you over a word, or knocking on the wrong door, even mistakenly pulling into the wrong driveway, and trying to leave.

Recognize the common denominator, guns are the problem. Tired of the guns don’t kill people, people kill people, no people with guns kill other people or themselves. Don’t give me the more people die in car accidents argument either. Cars have an intended purpose and are highly regulated, guns have one design purpose and that is to kill and currently are not regulated. In states like Texas firearms are available to anyone over the age of 18 and they’re trying to lower that.

GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Freud saw the ego as the only part of the conscious personality. It’s what the person is aware of when they think about themselves, and it is what they usually try to project toward others.

The ego develops to mediate between the unrealistic id and the real external world. It is the decision-making component of personality. Ideally, the ego works by reason, whereas the id is chaotic and unreasonable.

The ego operates according to the reality principle, working out realistic ways of satisfying the id’s demands, often compromising or postponing satisfaction to avoid negative consequences of society.

The ego considers social realities and norms, etiquette, and rules in deciding how to behave.

Jung saw the ego as the center of the field of consciousness which contains our conscious awareness of existing and a continuing sense of personal identity. It is the organizer of our thoughts and intuitions, feelings, and sensations, and has access to memories which are not repressed. The ego is the bearer of personality and stands at the junction between the inner and outer worlds.

The way in which people relate to inner and outer worlds is determined by their attitude type: an extraverted individual being orientated to the outer world, and an introverted one primarily to the inner world. Jung also noted that people differ in the conscious use they make of four functions which he termed, thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. In any individual, one of these functions is superior and is therefore more highly developed than other functions, since greater use is made of it, but each attitude operates in relation to the introversion or extraversion of the person, as well as in conjunction with other less dominant functions, giving a number of different theoretical possibilities.

The ego arises out of the Self during the course of early development. It has an executive function, it perceives meaning and assesses value, so that it not only promotes survival but makes life worth living. It is an expression of the Self, though by no means identical with it, and the Self is much greater than it. Jung compared the nature of consciousness to the eye: only a limited number of things can be held in vision at any one time, and in the same way the activity of consciousness is selective. Selection, he says, demands direction and other things are excluded as irrelevant. This is bound to make conscious orientation one sided. The contents which are excluded sink into the unconscious where they form a counterweight to the conscious orientation. Thus an increasing tension is created and eventually the unconscious will break through in the form of dreams or images. So the unconscious complex is a balancing or supplementing of the conscious orientation.

Many are guilty of buying into the common misconception that ego and confidence are essentially the same thing. They equate both with a brazen attitude that’s seemingly composed under pressure. It’s even been said that taking on such an attitude at work will get you ahead. in your career.

The reality, however, is that these two concepts are quite different. To have confidence is to have faith in your own abilities and believe in yourself, but the ego is something else, entirely. Unlike confidence, the ego operates out of self-interest. It seeks approval, praises, and validation at all costs in order to be seen as “right”. It is resistant to feedback and assigns motive where there isn’t any.

I referenced noted names in the world of psychology to give you a basic understanding of what the ego was initially intended to portray. Unfortunately, in today’s world EGO has gotten to a point where the individual or group is unwilling to accept any point of view that does not support their narrative. We have developed group ego, whether it is white, black, conservative, Christian, democrat or republican people gravitate to their group or perspective and rarely engage with ideas outside their established opinion. Because many refuse to listen to another perspective they automatically brand anything outside of what they choose to hear as a lie and not worth even entertaining as factual.

The United States has a two-party political system for better or worse that is what we have and historically those two perspectives on governing were able to compromise to solve problems. Yes, it is true that in 1860 there was no reconciliation, and the country went to war. It seems that we currently have a party that is intent on division and seemingly thinks that an authoritarian or autocratic form of rule would be superior to the system we currently have. I call that ego gone amuck.

We have a party intent on rigging the electorate too but the balance of power solely on the hand of a few, be damned what the people want. This group refuses to learn lessons from history. Rome fell because the division between the wealthy and the general population was too great, Marie Antoinette was beheaded because she held lavish parties while her people were starving. The wealth gap globally is huge but in what are considered first world counties the U.S. have an ever-growing wealth gap. In the fourth quarter of 2022, 68.2% of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 3% of the total wealth.

The Ego of the top 10 percent has convinced way too many that only they have the knowledge and ability to make things better and so we should let them have the whole pie. The truth is that they only care about themselves and their own and sharing isn’t in their nature.

So, I am asking everyone to put your ego in check, listen really listen and figure this out before Rome burns again and repeats history.   

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

This is an article from Spectrum Community through Conversation. I could not improve or expound on the material but I wanted to share it.

THERE IS MORE TO HUMAN SEXUALITY THAN XX AND XY

Written by: 

Bryan Ness

Published:
February 5, 2020

As children we are all taught that humans come in two forms, male and female. What could be simpler? As we become more educated, we learn that male and female are defined by possession of a specific combination of chromosomes, XX making a person female and XY making a person male. Whether a baby is male or female, depends on which sperm reaches the egg, as half of the sperm produced by males contain an X chromosome and half contain a Y chromosome. For those who have studied a bit of human biology it is also well known that Y chromosome bearing sperm swim faster and more energetically than X chromosome bearing sperm, or at least that is what I was taught. It turns out that this is a myth, as more sophisticated methods for distinguishing Y-bearing from X-bearing sperm have not found any differences in sperm motility,[i] and this is not the only myth about human sexuality. When it comes to sexuality, the more we learn, it seems, the less we know for certain. Even the simple male/female dichotomy, and all the gender/sexuality assumptions around this apparent simple distinction break down under scrutiny.

Human sexuality is complex and comprises several interacting processes. Society tends to distill sexuality down to sex and gender, assuming that the two are always tied together. If a child is born as male, then he will automatically develop male gonads and secondary sexual characteristics such as an Adam’s apple and facial hair, will display male-gendered behavior and will be sexually attracted to females, end of story. Sexuality is much more complicated than this, being the combination of, at minimum, four interacting components or processes: chromosomal sex, phenotypic/anatomic sex, gender orientation and sexual orientation (Figure 1). Each of these components develops independently of the others and at different times during development.

Figure 1. The four components of human sexuality: Chromosomal sex, phenotypic sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Each component is correlated with the other components in typical sexual development. For example, someone who is chromosomally male (XY), will usually be phenotypically male, will identify as gendered male, and will be sexually attracted to females. However, each of these four horizontal axes is potentially independent, such that a person could be born chromosomally male, but due to a gene mutation might be phenotypically intersex, or they might be both chromosomally and phenotypically female, but might identify as nonbinary[ii] or male. Outcomes can land at any point on each of the four axes, each outcome potentially independent from the other three.

---

Chromosomal sex is the most straightforward of these, and if there are only two sex chromosomes present, it is as simple as XX being female and XY being male. Complications arise when there is only a single X chromosome, which results in an intersex condition known as Turner’s Syndrome, or more than two sex chromosomes, which results in a variety of intersex conditions. Intersex conditions are also represented as variation in the second component of sexual development, phenotypic/anatomic sex, which includes all the physical characteristics associated with a person’s sex. Someone who is intersex has a mixture of physical traits distinctive of both sexes making determination of their phenotypic/anatomic sex uncertain. In the medical community intersex conditions have commonly been referred to as “disorders of sexual development” or DSDs. Both terms, intersex and DSD, can carry a certain amount of stigma, so it has been suggested by those with these conditions that an alternative term be considered, “differences of sexual development,” which conveniently can also be abbreviated as DSDs.

Until recently, babies born with a DSD were evaluated by physicians and assigned a sex as soon as possible, followed by surgical interventions to give the baby physical traits consistent with their assigned sex. Because a growing number of individuals with DSDs assigned a sex like this at birth have become dissatisfied later with the outcome, the medical community is now reassessing this approach, and is more often considering delays in assigning sex until the child can participate in the decision.[iii] Surgeries, other than those that are required to protect the health of the child, are also delayed as long as possible, allowing the child and family to carefully consider the eventual sex assignment. Some individuals with a DSD have decided to remain intersex, refusing to choose a sex assignment and the surgeries associated with the process.

The biological processes that lead to typical phenotypic sexual development can be summarized in a flow chart showing the genetic and developmental decision points that guide the process (Figure 2). The process is mediated by genes that act as switches that control the expression of other genes, that in turn control yet other genes later in the developmental sequence. At the beginning all embryos, regardless of their chromosomal sex, have the potential to be either phenotypically/anatomically male or female, meaning that sexual development is nonspecific at first. One of the most important genes in early sexual development is the SRY gene, which resides on the Y chromosome. It is the master switch that channels development of the embryo in the male direction. Even if an embryo is XY, if the Y chromosome does not possess a functional copy of the SRY gene, it will develop as female. Even a functional SRY gene, however, does not guarantee a completely male phenotype, as there are numerous other genes involved in shepherding development along. Mutations in any of the other genes involved in sexual development can result in variant outcomes, many of which are classified as intersex conditions, because the phenotypic/anatomic sex of the individual is often uncertain or mixed.

Figure 2. Cascade of fetal sex development and genes involved in sex determination and differentiation. Abbreviations: INSL3, INSL3, insulin-like factor 3; DHT, dihydrotestosterone; AR, androgen receptor; AMH, anti-Mullerian hormone. Source: Choi, J.H. and Yoo, H.W., 2012. “Differential Diagnosis of Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) by Molecular Genetic Analyses.” Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 17(3), pp.137-144.

---

The third component of sexuality, gender, or gender identity is the personal embodying of one’s sexual identity. To a large extent, gender identity is culturally defined, with certain behavioral patterns and modes of social presentation being associated with being male or female. Western culture typically expects men to be masculine and women to be feminine with all the concomitant behaviors and personality traits associated with these terms. The degree to which gender is biologically determined vs. culturally determined remains much debated, leading some people to dispense with the concept entirely, referring to themselves as gender fluid or nonbinary, allowing them to mix gender specific behaviors and presentation from both genders in complex ways, and defying long-held stereotypes. Other individuals are transgender (often abbreviated as trans) and self-identify with a gender opposite to that which is compatible with their chromosomal and phenotypic/anatomic sex. Like all aspects of sexual development, gender identity is assumed to be partly determined by genes, although exactly how is not certain, as the development of gender identity is less well understood.

The final, and apparently most complex, component of sexuality is sexual orientation. Although sexual orientation seems to be the last component to appear during development, since sexual attraction does not manifest until puberty, all evidence points to sexual orientation having its roots in genetics and early embryonic development. Although not completely genetically determined, growing evidence from twin studies,[iv] genome wide association studies (GWAS),[v] and other genetic evidence[vi] shows genetics to play a prominent role. The remainder of the nongenetic effects (including epigenetic effects) on sexual orientation seem to be prenatal and may be caused by variations in testosterone levels or other yet uncertain processes.

Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome: A Difference of Sexual Development

Although the precise biological roots of something like same-sex attraction are uncertain, differences of sexual development (DSDs) are well understood and provide instructive examples of how differences in sexuality are navigated. As already noted, many DSDs result in intersex conditions, leaving the phenotypic/anatomic sex and gender ambiguous. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) is the most common DSD, seen in 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 99,000 individuals with a normal male XY karyotype.[vii] It is caused by mutations in the androgen receptor gene which is located on the X chromosome. The androgen receptor protein is required for normal response to androgens (male sex hormones) of which testosterone is the best known. Mutant forms of the protein may respond partially to testosterone, resulting in a condition known as Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS), or may not respond at all to testosterone, causing Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS).[viii]

Babies born with CAIS are to all physical appearance female, having a vagina that looks externally normal, yet they have no uterus or ovaries, and instead have testes in the abdomen. Because of this, the condition often goes undetected till later when treatment for an apparent inguinal hernia reveals the presence of testes, or the child never starts menstruation during adolescence. Once the testes are discovered, past practice has been almost always to remove them because retaining them was believed to represent an unacceptably elevated risk of testicular cancer. Removal of testes has become increasingly controversial, because risk of testicular cancer before puberty is now understood to be extremely low[ix] and retaining the testes until after puberty enables normal breast development to occur (since the testes produce some estrogen and some testosterone is converted to estrogen as well) without the need for estrogen replacement therapy. Retaining the testes also appears to reduce the severity of osteoporosis later in life. Because essentially all babies with CAIS in the past were initially identified as girls and were raised as such, and almost all such individuals were later satisfied with their assigned sex and gender, this remains the practice. Most individuals with CAIS see themselves as fully female and feminine and display sexual attraction toward males and function sexually just like typical women.

Within a traditional Christian concept of sexual relationships individuals with CAIS pose a challenge. The traditional Seventh-day Adventist position that sees marriage as only between a man and a woman, and forbids same-sex marriage, begs the question in this case: Where does someone with CAIS fit into this definition? To summarize, a person with CAIS is chromosomally male, anatomically intersex (they have a vagina and testes), gender female, and they are usually sexually attracted to males. If someone with CAIS marries according to their own inclination, they will marry a man. Does this represent a same-sex marriage, since the chromosomal sex of both partners is male? And if the answer is yes, how should the church respond? In some sense, it is neither a same-sex marriage nor a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The North American Division Statement on Human Sexuality[x] openly admits that “given the complexities of the fallen human condition (Rom 3:23), we recognize that individuals may experience same-sex orientation through no choice of their own.” By this it is concluded that the condition of “being gay” does not represent a sinful condition. It goes on to state:

“We acknowledge that attraction to someone of the same gender may be temptation, but not an act of sin (Matt 5:27-28; Rom 6:1-23; Col 3:1-10; James 1:14-15); therefore, those with same-sex orientation, who conform to biblical teachings about sexual behavior, may fully participate in the life of the Adventist Church.”

The implicit message is that such individuals must remain completely celibate.

Applying this same principle to someone with CAIS, or some other DSD, would mean banishing that person to a life of celibacy, just because they were born with a difference in the way they developed sexually. It certainly can be acknowledged that we live in a sinful world, but to assume that differences in sexual development are solely the consequence of sin, and to therefore hold the person possessing such a difference to such a rigid standard of sexual conduct, seems unjust, if not unethical. Yes, a person with CAIS is chromosomally male, but their gender identity is fully female, and they are attracted to males, as is typical of most females. To anyone not privy to the biological details, such a marriage would appear no different than heterosexual unions.

Assuming that conditions like CAIS are the result of sin is problematic itself, since it is based on the assumption that perfect genetic systems would never experience mutations. Genetic mutations are neither good nor bad, inherently, and are the necessary basis of human variation. Without mutations humans would all look alike, with the same eye color, hair color, skin color, facial shape, etc. Mutations are the basis of the nearly limitless variation observed in the human family. It is impossible to conceive of a genetic system without mutation, and if God is the architect of life and of the genetic systems that support life, He must have incorporated the process of mutation to provide the diversity needed to produce a vibrant human population. Of course, before sin, maybe God had some system of making sure that all mutations were beneficial, so certainly, many mutations after the fall end up causing harm, but this is just speculation.

A larger problem with assuming that mutations, even deleterious mutations, represent a consequence of the fall, lies in the subjective nature of defining what mutations are deleterious. For example, although we do not know the precise genetic causes of cognitive differences, we do know that genetics is involved in such things as dyslexia[xi] and ADHD.[xii] An uncritical assessment of these traits might label them as detrimental, but this ignores their potential benefits. A variety of extremely successful people have dyslexia and/or ADHD, and rather than preventing their success, there is good evidence that these traits, properly directed, lead to their success.[xiii][xiv] Why should genetic variation in sexual development be any different, labeling any variation that deviates from the average as somehow negative and due to the effects of sin? Difference, just because it is generally perceived to be uncomfortably different from the familiar, should not be automatically assumed to be a result of sin. Many differences in sexual development could just as easily be treated like variation in hair or eye color, as simply a part of the wonderful diversity of human variation, and be celebrated as such.

The LGBTQ+ Spectrum as “Differences of Sexual Development”

In a broader sense, since all aspects of sexual development are known to involve some degree of genetic influence, lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals, from a biological perspective, represent some of the expected variation in sexual development. Throughout the animal kingdom a certain percentage of individuals in over 450 species display same-sex sexual behavior,[xv] an expected outcome for a behavioral trait that is under some degree of genetic control. From a developmental perspective it would be surprising if there were not some people born who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex, given the complexity of the underlying genetic and developmental processes. By the same reasoning, it would also be surprising if there were not some people born whose gender identity is opposite to their chromosomal and/or phenotypic sex.

Evidence that same-sex attraction is biologically based is well enough established that there is no need to present further evidence here, since even the North American Division Statement on Human Sexuality acknowledges this. The statement is less certain regarding transgender individuals, stating that the church “has not yet articulated an official position” on this issue. Its stated reason is that:

“The complex nature of transgenderism calls for further discussion before recommendations can be made for the Church.”

Although this might have seemed a valid reason to dodge the issue at the time, there is adequate evidence that transgender individuals are displaying a biologically-based condition. In 2002 Coolidge, Thede, and Young studied the incidence of gender identity disorder (GID)[xvi] in 314 twins and found that heritability for GID was 0.62,[xvii] which is comparable to the heritability estimates for major personality traits such as extroversion or positive emotionality and for alcoholism,[xviii] a trait long known to have genetic links. Even among non-twin siblings, if one sibling is transgender, there is a significantly higher probability that the other sibling will also be transgender than the occurrence rate in the population.[xix]

Although the preponderance of evidence points to genetic involvement, because gender itself is difficult to pin down, transgender individuals are difficult to characterize biologically, as well. The difficulty lies in the fact that gender identity derives from the brain, and there continues to be some disagreement as to what degree it is determined organically (i.e., stemming from actual brain differences) vs. intellectually/socially. Even typical gender development, long assumed to be rooted in brain differences, is extremely complex. Since the advent of brain imaging, researchers have searched exhaustively for differences between male and female brains, and statistically, in most studies differences are found, but it is not clear exactly how these differences relate to sex/gender differences in behavior.[xx] This has led some to conclude, like Angela Saini, that:

“Fresh theories on sex difference, for example, suggest that the small gaps that have been found between the brains of women and men are statistical anomalies caused by the fact that we are all unique. Decades of rigorous testing of girls and boys confirm that there are few psychological differences between the sexes, and that the differences seen are heavily shaped by culture, not biology.”[xxi]

Nevertheless, based on what brain differences appear to exist between the sexes, most brain structure studies of transgender individuals have revealed that their brains are either more like the gender with which they identify or are intermediate.[xxii] Unfortunately, these results are based on no more than a few hundred individuals, and some studies found that transgender brains resembled more the biological sex of the individual than their gender identity. Lastly, most of the individuals studied had already transitioned, so brain structures could have been affected by the hormonal changes involved in transition. More study is needed, but at present, the preponderance of the evidence is that for individuals identifying as transgender their gender identity is likely biologically based, at least in part.

Although not representing a clear departure from its 2015 stance on LGBTQ+ issues, the NAD has made some progress with its production of an “Adventist Edition” of the booklet Guiding Families of LGBT Loved Ones in 2018.[xxiii] A more affirming statement about gay and transgender individuals appears very early in the booklet:

“While it is tempting to focus on causation, I want to resolve this question up front: the origins of sexual orientation and gender identity are highly complex, multi-factorial, and likely rooted in both nature and nurture. For any one person, it can be impossible to know the exact cause. For this reason, we propose that we shift our focus from causation to compassion.” [Emphasis in the original.][xxiv]

While I applaud this openly supportive tone which suffuses the entire booklet, it concerns me that the word “likely” in the phrase “likely rooted in both nature and nurture” is used, rather than the more accurate word “is.” From a biological/genetic perspective all individuals in the LGBTQ+ spectrum are the way they are because of a complex combination of nature and nurture, the exact mix of the two being specific to each LGBTQ+ individual. The sooner we can openly acknowledge this, the better able we will be to see LGBTQ+ individuals as fully human and deserving of love, respect, and full acceptance like all God’s children. Regardless of my quibble with this point, I highly recommend the booklet, as it does more thoroughly humanize LGBTQ+ individuals, giving the reader a wealth of useful information essential to understanding what it is like to be an LGBTQ+ person in the church, with numerous tips on how to interact with LGBTQ+ individuals in a positive way. It lays the groundwork for a much more accepting and compassionate attitude toward LGBTQ+ SDA Christians. Additionally, it nowhere endorses any form of “reparative” or “conversion” therapy to change gay or transgender individuals, and clearly endorses the principle that gay and transgender individuals do not choose their sexual or gender orientation and should not be expected to change.

However, as positive a step as the above-mentioned booklet represents, it does not affirm LGBTQ+ individuals as fully integrated members of the church, able to be baptized and become full participants in church offices, should they go through with transition or marry a same-sex partner. Although very little mention is made about the official SDA stance on same-sex marriage, it does openly address this at the very end of the booklet by quoting the complete text of the SDA Fundamental Belief #23 on “Marriage and the Family” in which it is made clear that only marriages between a man and a woman are acceptable.[xxv] At another place in the booklet pastors are reminded that church policy forbids pastors from officiating at same-sex marriages, while assuring family members that attendance at such weddings is allowed, being up to the conscience of individual members.[xxvi] Thus, although the booklet is very refreshing in its stance that the church needs to be more inclusive, compassionate and loving toward LGBTQ+ individuals, many LGBTQ+ individuals may still feel rejected since they will be considered out of compliance with church policy should they choose to marry a same-sex partner. It is my hope, in this article, to show a path toward full affirmation of our LGBTQ+ members while also honoring basic biblical and moral principles.

How Should the Church Respond?

Recognizing that sexual and gender orientation is biologically based to a significant degree should prompt the church to revisit policies regarding the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals as members of the church. If being gay or transgender simply represents part of normal, genetically-based human variation, how can we consider these individuals any less valued by God? Is it appropriate to hold them to a standard more rigid than expected of others in the church? Should such individuals continue to be admonished to remain celibate or face being disfellowshipped?

The traditional basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage is the claim that the Bible prohibits it. It is true that some texts in the Bible appear to prohibit certain kinds of same-sex sexual behavior, but do these prohibitions apply to all cases of same-sex sexual behavior? A careful review of all the relevant texts finds that none of them addresses same-sex sexual relations in the context of marriage. This is not surprising since same-sex marriage was not even considered an option in ancient Hebrew culture, thus any treatment of the acceptability of same-sex sexual activity within a committed marriage relationship is also absent.

Until very recently, same-sex marriage was always rare, if not nonexistent, at least in Judeo-Christian culture. This is largely because, until the 20^th century, same-sex sexual behavior was considered to be against nature and was often criminalized. Nature it is argued, as created by God, decrees that heterosexual attraction is the God-ordained norm, and same-sex attraction is a perversion of nature. Consequently, gays are not actually “attracted” to members of their own sex, they are just seeking more sexual pleasure wherever it is available,[xxvii] and since males have always been considered to have a stronger sexual drive, where else to find more sex than with other men. This may help explain why the Bible is essentially silent when it comes to lesbians, as women were not considered to have the same intense sexual drive as men. Romans 1:26 is the only verse in the Bible that even hints at lesbian sexual behavior, but according to some theologians may more correctly be interpreted as addressing a more disturbing type of immoral sexual behavior.[xxviii]

Knowing that same-sex attraction is inborn, as already officially acknowledged by the NAD, changes the assumptions on which the traditional view of same-sex sexual relations is based. Someone who is gay is attracted to someone of their own sex by nature, not by choice. Thus, the desire to develop an intimate, committed relationship with someone of the same sex is natural for someone who is gay. Same-sex marriage would therefore be a natural and acceptable accommodation of this biological reality. Just as for heterosexuals, sexual relations outside of marriage violate God’s law, but within a monogamous marriage relationship, sexual relations are a normal outgrowth of a healthy, intimate relationship. It is time for the church to recognize that same-sex marriage, rather than violating God’s law, can play the same role as marriage does for heterosexuals, providing life-long companionship and a context in which to remain sexually pure.

A Moral Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

Despite the ample evidence that having same-sex attraction and being transgender are partly to largely biologically based, some may remain unconvinced, arguing that some, or most, gay and transgender individuals choose to be attracted to members of their own sex rather than by nature. Others may concede the biological arguments, but still consider being gay or transgender as the result of defects caused by living in a fallen world, and may see same-sex marriage as an extension of that sinful condition, a so-called state of “living in sin.” Although some may not be ready to consider the possibility that same-sex marriage is something God can bless, for those who are earnestly seeking for a more compassionate and loving way to affirm our LGBTQ+ members I would like to suggest a biblically and morally sound approach. I share this especially for the many in our church who have a family member or close friend who is LGBTQ+ and who have a deep longing to help these individuals find an affirming place in the church in which they can flourish spiritually.

Firstly, as mentioned above, same-sex marriage is nowhere forbidden in the Bible. Our prohibition against it stems from a tradition of interpreting the Bible in a way that does not consider the vastly different culture of today. It ignores the cultural meaning of marriage in biblical times, which was focused on kinship and the need to produce descendants, to the almost total exclusion of the primary reason for marriage today, companionship. Certainly, companionship was a component of marriage, but it was subsidiary to forging kinship bonds and producing descendants that would take care of one in old age and who would inherit the family property. That companionship was simply seen as a by-product is reinforced by the fact that marriages were arranged by the parents, they were not the result of falling in love. Well-made matches were hoped to result in loving companionship for life, but that was not the primary motivation for forming a marriage, and since producing descendants was central, of course marriages were always heterosexual. Same-sex marriage would make no sense in such a culture and even would be inferior to heterosexual marriages in which the couple was unable to produce children, a condition seen as a curse in biblical times which could represent grounds for divorce.

Secondly, to consider same-sex marriage to be wrong, it needs to be shown to be morally wrong, since there is no explicit prohibition of it in the Bible. Even some explicit prohibitions in the Bible are considered to no longer be wrong, because there is nothing morally wrong in doing them. A couple of examples of these kinds of prohibitions are found in Leviticus 19:19b (NIV): “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” There is nothing morally wrong with either of these actions, so Christians do not consider them a sin. Conversely, something that is permitted in the Bible may be determined later to be morally wrong. A prime example of this is slavery. The Bible nowhere explicitly prohibits slavery, and in most cases clearly tolerates or condones it, going so far as to outline laws that pertain to the owning and proper treatment of slaves. Nevertheless, no Christian today would consider slavery to be morally acceptable.

For many human actions God has given no specific guidance in the Bible, but he has instilled mankind with an ability to develop moral arguments as to whether specific actions are right or wrong. In the case of same-sex marriage, Chris Meyers has developed what he refers to as a “simple argument” based on moral reasoning which I have slightly adapted:

1. For an action or practice to be morally wrong, it must have some wrong-making feature.

In other words, if an action is morally wrong, there must be something about the action that makes it wrong.

2. Wrong-making features include the following: the action or practice i) causes harm or ii) violates some competent person’s autonomy or iii) is unfair or iv) violates someone’s individual rights or v), etc.

This second premise can be extended. It should include an exhaustive list of features that make an action or practice morally wrong.

3. Same-sex sexual relations between two consenting adults do not have any of these features. In other words, i) it is not harmful, ii) it does not violate anyone’s autonomy, iii) it is not unfair, iv) it does not violate anyone’s individual rights, v), etc.

This, of course, is not to say that same-sex sexual relations can never be morally wrong. For example, if a man is married to a woman and has secret same-sex liaisons on the side, that would be morally wrong. But it is not the same-sex sexual behavior per se that makes such behavior morally wrong. What makes it wrong is that it involves betrayal and the violation of one’s marriage vows. It is wrong because it is adultery, not because it is gay adultery.

4. Therefore, same-sex relations between mutually consenting adults are not morally wrong.

This argument is obviously valid. To say that an argument is valid means that if the premises 1-3 are true, then the conclusion (4) must be true. The conclusion might still be false but only if at least one of the premises (1, 2, or 3) is false.[xxix]

It is important when making moral arguments for one to remain objective. So often, when thinking about an issue like same-sex marriage, it is easy for disgust to hijack one’s ability to be objective. “The psychology of disgust and contamination regulates how many Christians reason with and experience notions of holiness, atonement, and sin,”[xxx] which can lead to inappropriately considering something wrong just because it disgusts us. Sexual behavior of any sort is prone to trigger disgust in people, depending on the context and the specific behavior. For example, just take a moment and ponder your parents having sex. Such thoughts almost universally trigger feelings of disgust, despite the knowledge that our parents had to have sex at least once to conceive us. Disgust is triggered even more easily when thinking about any sexual behavior that you personally do not consider “normal,” and even pondering such behaviors is considered an example of having “impure” thoughts. Sexual sins are unique in that the church almost universally regulates them by purity metaphors,[xxxi] and when we think of someone who has committed a sexual sin, we automatically feel disgusted as well.

I am convinced that a large part of the reason the church persists in prohibiting same-sex marriage is due to misguided purity concerns, driven by disgust of same-sex sexual behavior. People often overcome these biases when a family member or close friend comes out as gay or transgender, and it enables them to normalize their conception of what LGBTQ+ people are like. Once the church begins to see LGBTQ+ people as a normal part of the spectrum of human variation in sexuality and gender, it should enable us to see the moral rightness of same-sex marriage. A number of Christian denominations have been able to come to this conclusion, and it is my hope that the Seventh-day Adventist Church will reach this point soon as well.

Lyle Northey (Silent/Boomer)

There are 82 members of the House of Representatives that are veterans, and of those 61 are Republican. Out of 435 members less than 20 percent served in the military and even if they stood up for veterans and their disability pay being left alone, they are outnumbered 5 to 1. 

There are 24 members of the Senate and 2 members of the Supreme Court that are veterans and yet this group of people is willing to, yet again, screw veterans on money issues so that our wealthiest citizens can avoid paying taxes. 

This is another example of the never-ending line of crap that those that serve our nation and are willing to pay the ultimate price are given. Once it was health care for life, now we are paying for health care. Now the idea is to cut benefits for getting injured while serving this nation. What next, we get to do it for free. The house bill wants to start taxing disability pay for veterans. The very wealthy live on money borrowed from their stock purchases so that they do not pay taxes at all. This means that they have a way out of paying taxes on any earnings and can write off any expenses and have it both ways. 

The people at the federal level of service are generally awarded at a much higher rate than those that are in uniform. It takes a great deal more to get someone removed or punished for doing anything wrong when they are a civilian employee or elected official than when you are a member of the armed forces.

An elected official can write a check for thousands of dollars over what they have in the bank and get nothing more than a slap on the hand, a military member only has to write a check that does not clear and he or she is fined, perhaps reduced in rank, and almost certainly barred from further service.  See the fairness in this type of deal, good luck on that.

For all the people and their legal advisors that are still out there claiming that they have been harmed because of their participation in the J6 crap, Fox lost the fight on that. No election was stolen and if you are stupid enough to believe that you really are a very sorry person. Do not try to overthrow the government because a whiny old man that craps his pants every time someone doesn’t give him his way tells you to. Reasonable thought and common sense have taken a long break in this country and it started in 2015 when the combover Don decided that he was fit to be president and proceeded in blowing smoke up your asses to get you to buy off on it. If the House wants to cut spending, put Mr. MAGA in prison, stop the secret service watch, and remove his pension and you can put that money back in the drawer.

Now let’s go to the idea of budget cuts to the VA and we have more bs from all sorts of sources it seems. Many of the costs of things that active service members use and need and much of the services that are available to veterans are out of bounds because the supplier feels they can charge whatever they wish and the services will pay the bill. We have all heard of the $89 toilet seat and the high-priced hammer so it is not surprising that we have budget costs through the roof.

Cutting services and programs, laying people off and closing health care facilities all seem a bit one sided as to where the money needs to come from to balance the budget. Let’s try to look at making more efficient efforts to balance the budget. 

In the active military go back to running dining facilities as cafeterias not fast-food joints. Keep track of the amount purchased and the amount thrown away and get the waste under control. In facilities like cemeteries stop having 60 people on staff to do the work of 20. If you are not sure what that looks like visit the National Cemetery in Washington State and get some ideas. Yes, that would mean some people might lose their jobs, but then it also might mean that the 5 new facilities proposed could be staffed without having to depend on one of the slowest HR’s in the system.

Do we need to make the plight of those suffering from PTSD worse so that a former Senator or Representative has a full paycheck when no one else in the country gets that kind of federal retirement. Former Presidents don’t need a lot of the perks they are getting and if they were the true examples, they claimed to be to get elected they would be giving back.

We seem to always find a way to hit the bottom tier of society, the old, the homeless, the sick, the ones that can furnish the least push back to attack when it comes to balancing the budget. Why not hit the pockets of the ones most capable of paying the bill without even noticing the fact that it was paid. If donors are so available then get the money from them, the million a weekend for a sick crooked former president. 

Since we have a Supreme Court that feels it is okay for the public coffers to put money into the religious school system, let’s tax the Churches and all their riches from various write off businesses. 

There are other ways to balance the books and the biggest one is to elect officials in both parties that may not always agree with one another, but they can always find common ground to work out the problems from, that in itself would be a blessing.

We are lucky that as the country opened there were individuals that saw we have areas that need to be set aside because of the esthetic value not the dollar value of what we can take from this land and leave a waste land. National Parks are the heritage that we are leaving for our children and hopefully they will do the same. Our former president wanted to open the land to exploration and dig, drill and destroy for mineral wealth. He took mercury off the dangerous chemicals list because it is a fast method to separate gold from base material, science lesson for today.

The campaigning has already started and the promise of putting more judges on the bench that can hardly walk because their shorts are too tight. More lies about what the Democrats are trying to do and how wonderful I am and how corrupt my opponent is, it is enough to make you sick. We cannot afford to put that back in office, put him in jail, but not in office. Take most of the lead Republican members of Congress out and shoot them as they cannot focus on the national good only on the dear leader. 

What is he doing, causing problems by making public information that need not be public about people, trying to make trouble. His tactic is and has been to be very obnoxious about everything. Lie and then tell a bigger lie to cover the one just told, point figures at people and see what kind of crap you can heap on someone else’s back. We do not need the person that gets along only with those individuals that dictate over their nations. We need a person that can talk to anyone, perhaps even the most belligerent of current rulers.

Day after day we hear the same thing coming from DC another hearing, another day spent blasting the people on the other side of the room and at the end of the day nothing has been done and we are no closer to resolving issues than when we started. Every day that is spent in a pissing contest should be a day the members of Congress do not get paid and a day they have to make up out of their recess.

Keep track of who is present and who took part in at least voting on issues. If your score card has little to nothing on it at the end of the session you should be sent home and a replacement should be sent in. All this would happen without further compensation to those that did not participate and if your part is to cause problems and point fingers, call names and accomplish nothing else you will also suffer the same fate.  The point has to be that if you are going to ask people to put their hopes in your hands you are not going to sit on them in the back of the theater in the dark.