ANOTHER AGENDA, ANOTHER BOYCOTT

Boycotts are a lot like how we give something up for Lent or make New Year's resolutions. The smart thing is to name something you don't care about in the first place. But then if someone asks, you're caught in a scam. Others commit in a more substantial way. But then by Easter, any memory of their sacrifice is lost to time and unintentional failure. One percent of them are not only successful to the letter of the rules involved but also to their spirit. Back in the day, the day being a long, long time ago, there were a lot of boycotts of this and that in the zealousness of youth. Some might be still going on, but not with the same fun as they were at first.

Some boycotts do work. At least Nelson Mandela thought so. And so did the good people of Montgomery, Alabama. Others might not accomplish their goal, but they shake things up for a while. But many are soon out of the news cycle even in this 24/7 era. So it is always interesting when a new boycott is announced. Usually, there is some upsetness (new word) involved based on a hardened agenda that is in competition with one or more other agendas. The rhetoric continues until malaise or practical necessity sets in. Winners and losers are then determined on both sides with very predictable results. This is how things are done these days. ...Or probably something like that.

 Here are some guidelines and tips you might want to consider if you are in a boycott.

1. Say you're boycotting a store like Target over something like their bathrooms. If you haven't shopped there in 20 years, you can say you've been boycotting their stores that long because you knew they'd eventually do something stupid.

2. If you're boycotting a fast food outlet that you really, really like, make use of their late night drive-thru hours dressed as the mascot of your favorite NFL team. If this is too much, pay someone you trust to get the food for you. But it still would be wise for them to go in disguise.

3. Approach any boycott as a lawyer would. For example, if you are boycotting Pepsi, it has to also specifically list Diet Pepsi. Otherwise you are free to drink it instead, especially if you have untreated Type II Diabetes or if your size only comes in a number and two letters.

4. Do not boycott a state that your grandmother has lived in all her life. She will not understand why you can't come see her.

5. Judging others who do not participate in or approve of the boycott creates a "Why don't you care as much as I do?" environment. This is good and very useful. It also cuts down on the number of Christmas, Ramadan, Winter Solstice, Hanukkah, Festivus and Kwansaa cards you will have to send. ....Or have to receive.

6. Be careful not to reveal or confirm any underlying schema no matter how obvious it may be. Good causes fueled by animus usually end up with doing the "I told you so! ...I told you so!" dance at the most inappropriate times.

7. Keep in mind that any boycott can be countered by those who feel strong enough to launch a buycott (probably needs a better word) hoping to negate the effects of your ban. Claims of persecution may rise if both sides are not following The Golden Rule. 

8. Sometimes, boycotts aren't thought through to their logical end. Unless you were a luddite, why would you boycott Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, email etc, especially if they are a big part of your making a living. ...Exactly! You wouldn't. How else would you tell people about your boycott? The problem is that they might be doing the same thing as your boycotted is companies doing. It would be inconsistent if not downright hypocritical to exempt them. However, you could go back to paper. The USPO would love it. ....Now don't you wish you had bought more Forever Stamps?

Formal boycotts are just organized versions of everyday life. How many times have you said, "I'll never go back to that place again."? How many times have you quit talking to someone? How many times have you withheld affection or sex in order to make a point or get your way? Giving affection or sex to accomplish the same usually goes by a different word.

We routinely pull back when the situation is right. Perhaps not all the way, but we certainly pull back far enough so that it gets noticed. The marriage dynamic is probably the most obvious place where this is seen. But it's easily part of many other situations like work, church, school, society and not to forget, the extended family. Humans are an odd sort sometimes. And we will continue to be until we can find a better way to settle our differences and injustices.

Oh! One last thing. Boycotts are often like elections. It's pretty hard to tell who's telling the truth or even coming close to it. But if it's something that you agree with, chances are that it's the truth.

ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT

When I was younger, say 34-35, I still thought the longest word in the English language was antidisestablishmentandinterrism. I thought was a combination of antidisestablishment and interrism. That wasn't quite it. It was actually antidisestablishmentarianism and it wasn't the longest word either. Oddly, I have understood the issue as a Baptist and as an Anglican. Needless to say, there was a difference.  Granted, this could be resolved by allowing for context but even with that, separation of church and state seemed to be what was fair for all. But few have seen it as a black and white situation. Not only is there a lot of gray, there is a lot of direct involvement, especially by the larger churches. It seems that it's quite important to be a part of the establishment regardless of how it actually works or is defined.

Even the briefest attention paid to the news gets you an awareness of primary politics that leaves one wondering who or what the establishment really is? Or is there even such a thing in the first place if you can be part of it and not part of it at the same time. Most candidates can claim both at the same time or better yet show it by their actions when they are trailing in the polls. Since I believe we live in a world full of paradoxes, this just might be one of them. 

But I suspect the answer is much more a matter of convenience than anything else. Apparently the establishment has come under more challenge than it has in many years. Perhaps going back to when the Republicans were formed out of what was left of the Whig Party. So, this election cycle has the possibility of establishing a new establishment in both parties. But more than likely there will be quite the mess in the Republican Party if Trump is the candidate and a leftward ho shift in the Democrat Party even when Bernie doesn't become the national candidate.

For better or for worse, change is coming. How far it will go is anyone's guess. But for sure, if successful,  the new establishment that will likely succumb to power, privilege, prestige, partisanship, personal agendas, pandering and political exclusion. So right now, I can't get too excited. But I'm sure there is going to be a lot more entertainment like how Evangelicals actually end up voting, like a third party effort, like the possibility of both candidates being disqualified, like the media still not knowing what is going on, like more outrageous claims as to how a woman's body works - hence no need for equality, like how promises are made with no real idea of how to pay for them, like all the reasons that Wall Street is more important than the care of our wounded veterans, and like so many other things that are exploited or ignored when no one can agree on what the facts are in the first place.

It might be too simplistic to say the next presidential election will be the greed of a few versus the greed of the many or a vote for the lesser of two evils which still means voting for evil. There is a potential to change the way things don't get done in Washington. It will be interesting to see where the vote for self-interest comes out and if there is any kind of establishment change. My prediction is that enough will be disrupted that it will be hard to put it back the way it was. ...But what do I know, I was going for Scott Walker to win.  

GENERALISSIMO FRANCISCO FRANCO IS STILL DEAD

To my surprise, I heard the other day that Generalissimo Francisco Franco was still dead. I just couldn't believe it. If there were anyone whom I thought would NOT be still dead, it would be him. He took so long to die that I thought for sure that he could at some point come back to life again. Well, I guess he didn't. Frankly, I'm disappointed. It would be quite the event, as coming back to life doesn't happen as often as those who can so easily expend it might think. The reverse process is a little more involved, except on soap operas where they pull it off on quite a regular basis. But sometimes, it's just the evil twin.

I'm sure there is some controversy as what constitutes a true coming back. I have heard of those who woke up in a morgue. Who knows what exactly happens in those cases. Similarly, near-death experiences are interesting but seem quite subjective. And anything like reincarnation appears to be something entirely different. So to really count, you should be dead for it at least a few days and regardless of how long, you should come back as you where or maybe a little improved. 

When I was young, "by now he stinketh" was one of my favorite Bible verses. By the time I was a teenager, verses talking about breasts overtook any thoughts of a rotting corpse. But I didn't get very far from that imagery. Death became all too real and its finality was quite observable. To my knowledge, there have been no returns. ...Yet anyway.

But as I approach that inevitable moment, I'm entertaining a notion of what it might be like to return to Earth. Perhaps it would be to live life all over again in order to do the things I didn't get to do in this life. But I'm not so sure about dealing with all the things I didn't like for a second time. Going the other way, say a hundred years from now, I can't see were that much would change before I made it back. I suspect there would still be plenty to dislike, but also lots to like as well.

As much as I increasingly long for memorable days and wish I could redo some parts my life, I'm beginning to see there's no need to change or relive what is done, regardless the joy involved. I have been more fortunate than many, I've suffered what many haven't, I've made choices that only seemed right at the time, my world awareness grew from a small farm to a rather large cosmos, I've seen people at their best and at their worst, and I've seen truth as an ever moving target. ...But I would never say that any of it was meant to be.


 

THE STRANGE CASE OF THE KENTUCKY CLERK

I don't always get things right. Just ask anyone who knows me. I can have blank spaces in my thinking which when realized are quite embarrassing. But if I stay with something long enough, the blank spaces get filled in. Sometimes however, there are situations that keep me wondering where the truth of the matter really lies, if indeed that can be determined. Like the situation of the Kentucky clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone because her religious conviction is that marriage is between a man and a women only, but if she issued licenses only to them it would discriminate against the man/man and women/women applicants. Does anyone have some aspirin?

Add to this that her main defender says it's actually Kentucky law and that the law has to change before she is obligated to follow the Supreme Court ruling. This apparently is how the constitution works but so few understand it that way. This Kentucky clerk is apparently one of the few. But also her defender says that this Kentucky clerk has the conviction of her beliefs, natural law and the law of God that overrides any Supreme Court decision and that she might be the first Christian (in the modern era I assume) to go to jail for standing up for what she believes. I guess Martin Luther King was just there for a visit. 

So, is it a matter of constitutional law, standing against what is morally wrong like slavery, or convoluted politics wrapped in religious zeal? Just so I won't be completely wrong, I'm going to say all three.

Constitutional law isn't that constitutional when it varies according to which justices happen to be on the court at the time. But there are ways to change Supreme Court rulings. One is by amendment, but that is quite the process so replacing the justices who will overturn or change the law to something you like better seems to be the more direct approach.

Standing against what you believe to be morally wrong is not only a right, it's a duty. The problem is that this duty is shared by everyone else. There are several options here. Be in a position in order to enforce or impose your beliefs. Be in position to argue for your beliefs. Be in position to do peaceful protest ...or violent if you're really angry. Be in position to support politicians that agree with you or at least say they do. Be in position to use Second Amendment solutions as needed, unless of course you are a Muslim.

The church and state relationship seems to be something that's used when it's convenient and not used when it's not convenient. Whatever way it's currently taken, it's that way for all "churches." But some argue that a majority church can have priority. I'm not sure why that's necessary if the majority church votes as it should. They would win by the sheer reality of numbers. But maybe this is the problem. The majority church doesn't vote as it should because there's not an agreement as to what is right for a nation of many voices. Must be that's harder than it looks.

It will be interesting to see what all comes from further legal, religious and political involvement. But if I were this clerk in Kentucky, I'd think about getting a job at Hobby Lobby or Chic-fil-A. ...But for sure, it would be out of practicality more than anything else.

WHAT GOD?

I want to be clear. I'm not questioning the existence of God. I'm questioning what people mean by God. Mike Huckabee said that God is more real than the clouds. That's nice enough but does that mean he knows God better, that his idea of God is the right one, or is he just saying something after equating the nuclear deal with Iran to the ovens of the holocaust? Hard to tell. But it seems the God card can be thrown as conveniently as all the others.

First off, I don't think the Israelis are just going to sit there. They've already bombed the Palestinians back from the border, so I don't think taking on Iran when necessary will be any problem. Besides, there are several other factors involved.  No, it seems as if Mike Huckabee, Pastor Huckabee when it's convenient, is no different than any other politician. None of which can speak realistically about the deal's pros and cons. I personally think it's a pretty sizable diplomatic failure that could have used some of Donald Trump's verbosity to fatigue them into submission.

But Mike is not the only one who uses the God card. Scott Walker in an email to potential supporters said that God had called him to run. In checking further, it seemed as if only the less than reliable agenda driven sites carried anything about it. They all had the sense of the preposterous. But I've always believed that God works in mysterious ways. And believe it or not, he hasn't asked my opinion in a couple months or so. Besides, is being called by God some kind of disqualifier? I was grateful that at least one candidate was called by God until I saw an article in Salon (July 22, 2015) that said other candidates, directly or indirectly made the same claim.

That was confusing at first. Apparently, John Kasich, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum and not so surprisingly Mike Huckabee were also on God's list of candidates. What was the point of a multiple calling? Certainly not just for his own entertainment. I didn't believe God is that frivolous. Believing there was a purpose and not a conflict, I decided that some are more called than others, which fits the general belief that some are more equal than others. So for me, it's going to be that Scott Walker who has my imprimatur. That is of course as long as he stays ahead of the others in the polls.

But has the one who is presently first in the polls just not said that he is also called by God? I pondered the possibility but realized that he had an even higher calling from his massive echo. I'm sure some are saying that he might be called by Mephistopheles. The hair is obviously covering something. It could easily be horns. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and just say he talks a good game and makes a great deal. ...But on second thought?

I would be more anxious about this situation if there weren't little over a year yet to spend a lot of money, steal the neighbor's yard signs, and marathon watch Netflix to avoid the political commercials. But hopefully in the end, there will be a reason for it all.

Rather obviously though, being called to run doesn't mean you'll win. It's kind of like when parents tell their children they can be whatever they want to be. Then reality smacks them in the face and they settle for being the Vice-President. I still think that my man Scott Walker will be the luckiest dog in the pack. ...Or as we sometimes say, "The Chosen One." This is only a fragile prophesy that could be exposed anywhere along the way. But I did notice that, to my knowledge anyway, there haven't been any Democratic candidates who have claimed that God called them to run. ...But who would believe them if they did?


BONUS GOTCHA GRAPHIC

CREDITS: SALON Sophia Tesfaye HUFFPOST Scott Conroy, Sam Wikes WHOEVER DID THE GRAPHIC, STATUSMIND.COM, MIKE HUCKABEE, MINDCONTROLBLACK ASSASSINS.COM

LAW AND ORDER: PERSONAL OFFENSE TEAM

With the amount of strident and invective rhetoric in the social media and elsewhere, there needs to be a way to determine if someone is truly and rightly offended or if they are just overly sensitive about all that they hold to be true. Apparently, hurt feelings are the most heinous of wounds. I'm talking about the personal offenses that occur daily in the war of opinions, beliefs, social classes, political agendas, and critical reviews not to mention the battle for superior knowledge and the ultimate in refined taste. 

This is a good perspective, but I'm not sure if anyone can stay so focused. To me, it's another one of those damned paradoxes of life. We might all save our offenses for the BIG, LIFE AND DEATH realities, but they aren't that easy to change. Maybe that's why we can become so invested in LESSER offenses like just about everything on Days of Our Lives. Come on Abigail! Get your act together. Are you going to be a little tramp all the days of your life?

I don't watch Law and Order: Special Victims Unit very often. But when I do, I fall in love with Mariska Hargitay all over again. Perhaps if I didn't, I'd watch more. But maybe not. I'm more of a Hallmark: Crimes Of The Heart kind of viewer. But things like murder and sexual assault need every bit of the attention they can get.  The way I figure it, the more special units the fewer traffic cops and highway patrolmen with radar guns. ...A win-win for everyone. 

So the idea of a special personal offense team or POT doesn't seem that far fetched. Of course there would have to be the obligatory couple of detectives but beyond that, the team should have a counselor or two, and a pawnbroker. (who knows better than someone who doesn't mind capitalizing on your valuable possessions) If one isn't available someone from the IRS would do. Others should be added as the need is made clear. Right now, personal offenses are a moving target. 

"It's a PO if I say it's a PO" seems to be standard of determination at this point. The other point is how many are laughing. Interestingly, what an enemy does is offensive no matter what. When a friend does the same thing, "Well, that's different." You can see that being POT investigator wouldn't just be having great theme music, an on and off love life and a back-story that continues to surprise. Tell me again how it was that you were a nun in a convent and ended up killing three priests who were part of a sleeper cell from a militant atheist group. And how you got pregnant by one of them and now fear the time when your son finds out that you killed his farther.

Having no fear, the POT agents would delve even into the PO complaints that involve relatives. These may prove to be the most popular episodes of the program. It might take more than the wisdom of Solomon to make accurate PO determinations. Rather real or just over sensitive, you can be sure they will likely go on much further than the evidence shows to be reasonable. Perhaps through the course of the show, the POT detectives can find out why relatives are so offensive in the first place. If they weren't so offensive, there'd be fewer PO's. But some are going to be offended no matter what.

Another difficult part for our POT operatives will be those who can interpret most anything as a PO. It could be because they are overly critical or maybe addicted to a sense of moral or intellectual superiority and love the feeling of being outraged. Here, the team, who don't carry guns, may have to at least carry tasers to deal with situations where the PO has gone over the edge and caused an emotional explosion. This might be a bit much, but who hasn't wanted to taser someone who is ranting on about something that you did to them.

I'm sure as the show develops there will be plenty of stories to take from real life in order not to strain the writing staff. This would easily fit the always popular week-to-week infusion of special guest stars. Typecasting according to the particular PO would add an extra touch. After a while, the show could begin to show the wear and tear on the team, certainly one of them gets PTSD. Then there's the possibility later on that PO's start to gain even more legal merit. Each new possible crime would get the full treatment but with a twist that no one had thought about before.

All though the show, there's an ongoing discussion if not somewhat of a conflict as to what PO's are all about and ultimately what is the best way to deal with them. In the series final, the team finds a plaque in an old abandoned school cafeteria kitchen that reads, "Don't be offended by forgiveness." "Could it be that simple?" one of them asks. Another replies, "I think that's only when it truly was an offense to begin with." 

CREDITS: IZQUOTES.COM, LAW AND ORDER, SUE FITZMAURICE

THE UNEASY PACE OF CHANGE

Change on the prairie is remarkably slow at times. That's the way we like it. But change does come. Farming and ranching changes a little from year to year and progresses slowly toward an eventual new look, but without very much fanfare. Communities change with increase in population and school enrollment as others change with a decrease. But further, you can see the remnants from times past of once potential communities and hopeful homesteads that were left for different dreams. 

Every now and then, a faster symbol of change occurs. The most recent was the going out of business of a store that has long served rural communities. It could have been quicker except for that it came by some sort of scale of percentages off until the inventory was gone. Granted, they were likely cycling in all the merchandize from warehouses but the incremental drops in percentage off was more like water torture.

I live 45 miles from three towns of any size, Yuma, Wray and Burlington. Each had an ALCO store; the one in Wray moved into a new store location not that long ago.  The weekly sales flyer was always perused and kept until the next arrived, just in case. Downsized Wal*Marts would be a good description. The prices matched what you had in mind to spend. I have no idea of what happened to the company but with the now empty stores, I wondered if something else would come in. But so far, they're just sitting there, at least they were the last time I looked.

When my wife and I traveled though out Colorado and neighboring states, we found other ALCO stores and often stopped to get one thing or the other because that was the kind of stores they were. I suspect most of the ALCO's were in smaller rural towns. To me, the store closings just didn't seem right. They fit well. As long as you weren't looking for anything too exciting, you had a good chance of finding it there.            

The ALCO stores no doubt caused some local stores to close and drew business from the larger towns that people made special trips to in order to get what they needed. The new stores must have found enough customers and became profitable. They eventually were the new norm, that which was expected, and the way it always was.

Sometimes it's hard to say if a change will be for better or for worse or for staying the same. It likely depends on who's saying it. But no matter, other factors come along that eventually produce the next change, whether subtle or dramatic. 

Let me say, so there is no misunderstanding. I live here, but I don't have to make a living here. For the locals, that's a big difference. Many are religiously devoted to the local economy. But for several years now some people have gone more frequently to more distant and bigger towns to get better deals and choices, even as far as a two hour trip to Denver.

Of course, mail ordering now has a big impact. I'm sure the every time the UPS truck makes a delivery to our house, it will be another year before we'll be accepted into the prairie community. But both UPS and FED-EX deliver daily in this area, so I'm not the only one ordering from amazon. But we've also had SEARS and AMERICAN FURNITURE deliver. So it might be awhile before we ever get invited to a potluck or are recognized by anything more than the obligatory wave.

So, it makes sense that these, and perhaps several other factors, which are changes in themselves, came together to necessitate the closing of the ALCO stores. And now, they are just the remnants of a day not so long ago that serve to symbolize even more changes, but mostly in finding new places or ways to get what  we need. If indeed, that wasn't something that was happening all along, but we were just too busy to think that much about it. 

CREDITS: ALCO Stores, Miscellaneous Arts, Getty