Saturday, December 26, 2009


Here it comes.....yet another tiring allusion to the realm of the lexicographer's compendiums. But, because it is, in this day and age, so very important to find and work from a definite basis in truth, and therefore, accuracy, I suspect that you will easily be able to understand the reason for the reference and follow where it leads. So, with your kind indulgence, we proceede.

Patriotism, noun. Love of one's country; the passion which influences one to serve one's country, either in protecting its rights, or maintaining its institutions and laws in purity and vigor; the characteristics of a patriot. I would add "the determined defense of its soverignty."

"That patriotism which animates and prompts to deeds of self-sacrafice, of valor, of devotion, and of death itself - that is the public virtue, that is the sublimest of public virtues."
- Henry Clay.

I submit that as well presented as the definition is, and with the forementioned lexicographer's highest talents applied to sifting out accuracy and clarity for the issue, the truest meaning of the word is stunningly understated in that brief passage. Patriotism in these times includes a much more prodigious responsibility. Patriotism should be defined as the defense of our country against ideologies that are opposed to maintaining the accomplishments of the socio-economic system that is the lifeblood of our modern civilization as provided by our founders. Lack of that specific quality of patriotism in Congress has lead directly to a precipitation of socialism and government expansionism that far outstrips the original injustices that became the basis for the American Revolution by country miles.

Already, I can just hear all of the special interests clamoring for me to be politically corectly hung from a tall tree for even hinting that there are ideas out there espoused by anyone that are not completely compatible with harmonius life in these States, and, they will endeavor to display great offense and chagrin at the very concept of such heresy. But the truth is, they KNOW they're wrong, logic dictates that on a regular basis. But they make their living and fortunes from the deceit they purvey. Socialism, and its ugly sisters, facisim and communism, only ever have benefitted the few, and temporarily at that. Political correctness as the special interests have tailored it for themselves is the only effective battering ram they have had for shoving all of their whacked, hairbrained ideas up our colons. And, it's been very successfull, as well as dependable.

Whole generations of fellow travelers too lazy or disinterested to discern right from wrong with the application of logic have been indoctrinated with that "anyone's ideas are acceptable" crap. And you are expected to accept that on no other authority than that you may offend them if you don't agree. Simply put, they're not all acceptable. For example, just as driving around with a railroad spike stuck in your tire is very easily followed by logic to a disasterous end, no matter why it got there, so is locking up energy production from any historical source to create a constriction on society that is easily controlled by bureaucrats likely to lead, just as predictably, by the same simple method of deduction, to the same result. No matter what justification the politician dreams up. Socialist ideas are not compatible with free society. Control diametrically opposes freedom.

Patriots realize that it's never really about the "good" of the country for the special interests, it's just about the control of the country, mainly by an elected plutocracy that is not affected by what they do, nor has any concience about how they do it. And, of course, the use of tax money funded payoffs to assist the power grabs. Amazingly, fighting for half of a century to socialize medical care is not a clue to them that many people aren't interested in participating in such a disaster. It's just a challenge to the elected plutocrat, like winning a Monopoly round.

Point here is that only patriotism, practiced by anyone that believes in logical, limited government, in any manner on any scale by positive means, will save this country from the balkanization that is being rampantly propagated by special interests, and, the increasing control that government uses that balkanization to justify. What patriots have worked, sacrificed, fought and died for this past two hundred years is under unceasing attack from both without and within and the cumulative effect is less freedom for us, more redistribution of our power and the fruits of our labor for the attacker's use.

Patriotism, unlike special interests, is not exclusive. Anyone that cares for the good of all as opposed to the largess of the specialized, can be a patriot. Doesn't matter if you're black, Hispanic, female, handicapped, old, blonde, green-eyed, short, bald, or gay. You just gotta have the ability to put agendas that only benefit a few aside for the cause that benefits all: Freedom. It will in turn take care of you. Guaranteed. And, should you discover that there is still something you hate about the good of all, no problem, patriotism will not stop you from leaving the country. One thing, though. You cannot be a patriot just by announcing to the press that you are. You have to act like one. Then, press releases don't even matter. They'll seek you.

A word of caution: Patriotism can only exist in an environment of unvarnished truth. Which, serendipitously, eliminates self-centered and self-serving special interests. You have to be willing to think for yourself and always search for truth for guidance, and, that can be an arduous task.

Patriotism should be revered like religion, not like barnyard chores. It is not just love of country, or even service to it. It's taking some responsibility to actively preserve it, because if we fail, the first two don't matter. Patriotism gave us the best country in the history of the world, it is how we got here in the first place, and, it's the only way we're going to stay.

Remember this: People will only do to you what you let them. Will you let your freedom be taxed, or signed, or, even voted by Congress away? You don't have to. Yet.

Sunday, December 6, 2009


Responsibility, noun:
1. The state or quality of being answerable, accountable, liable, or responsible, as for a trust, debt, office, or person.
2. Means of meeting liabilities; ability to answer in payment.
3. That for which one is accountable, liable, answerable, or responsible, as a duty, debt, or trust.
Root word: responsible, meaning, among other things, having such intellectual or moral capacity as to be able to discriminate and choose between right and wrong; with regard to any given act, free from compulsion and having knowledge of the natural consequences. I would add to that possessing the fortitude to consistently act in the positive.

The reason for these seemingly mundane and boring recitals of definition is to attempt to give context to a thunderously serious concept which forms the most important, basic and fundamental fiber in the fabric of human relations. "Now," say you of the unknowing, uncaring, or unpracticing; "what warrants all of this hyperbole about a term which so many of us in modern society find unfamiliar, discomforting, distasteful, unattractive, or, just plain downright unfair?" This is the cut to the chase: Responsibility is the currency with which we buy freedom.

First, though, a reminder of an old saw: Freedom isn't free. Here is how it works. The founding fathers handed us the greatest socio-economic improvement device ever concieved as the basis for the formation and operation of this country. Their responsibility ended up being the first payment on our freedom. They primed the pump, started the ball rolling. Their responsibility to work or fight or die to craft such an organization as the United States of America was forged into the first incarnation of a government that was to be SUBSERVIENT to it's citizens and controlled by them for the intended purpose of protecting the newly unleashed freedom. They had witnessed tyranny and were determined that the scourge would never again in their lives take root among them. They prevented that by limiting the powers of government. That was accomplished by accepting for themselves the responsibility for the powers not given the government.

Now, those of you who cannot imagine what life would be in this day and age without government this or that in your lives are wondering just exactly where on Earth the responsibility for those functions would lie if not for it. Here's how they solved it in the late 1700's: They reserved the powers, and, responsibilities, to THEMSELVES. They provided their own retirement. They provided their own healthcare. They provided charity to those who had legitimately fallen on hard times. They provided education for their children. They developed their own specialized skills and fit them into an economy they created. They fed, clothed, sheltered, and transported themselves. Therefore, they did not have to depend on, or, answer to anyone else for whatever they chose to do or how they did it. They used morality and logic to govern their actions. Lots of hard work, that responsibility for themselves. But it always bought more freedom.

Anyone that has managed to pry themselves away from "ESPN" or "MTV" or "reality TV" or any of various vices and personal dramas might be mildly aware that there has been for over sixty years in this country a concerted effort to restrict freedom that has been presented as at first benevolent, then benign, then, as the bureaucracy unfolds and multiplies exponentially, necessary to the health and welfare of the proletariat. How did this come about? The answer is stunningly simple and obvious. Politicians, in quest of power, which only source was the people of this country, hit upon the idea that many of those people were tired of the work involved in the production of the responsibility they needed to purchase freedom. So, naturally appealing to the lazy side of human nature, they decided to eliminate as much freedom as possible to obviate the need for all that nasty hard work of maintaining an account full of responsibility.

Responsibility has qualities that compare to energy in physics as well. It can be converted to other forms, but, it cannot be destroyed. It can also be wasted. So, what happened to the responsibility that was no longer needed? The politicians said that their minions would assume it and care for it for the people, but that is not entirely the case. Much of it has been converted in that reactor that is modern government back into a different, dangerous form of power. Power, formerly vested in the governed, converted to responsibility to maintain the ability to acquire a supply of personal freedom is instead diverted and wasted by re-converting it through the pork-barrel to political power. Problem is, it is in this incarnation a Ponzi scheme, benefitting only a few political crooks.

But, lack of freedom does not eliminate the requirements of responsibility. It had merely been transferred to a pigeon hole. So, to ultimately deal with it, politicians return to their only source of anything, the people, and, in a sleazy shell game of redistributing wealth for votes, force more responsibility upon and out of them in the form of tax, which is then directly converted to more political power. You're right. That's not really dealing with it. It's just creating a responsibility deficit and then kicking it all down the road. But, the politicians, like crack addicts, can't resist, so they don't care.
Wasted responsibility. Lost freedom. Basic physics. So simple, a child could understand. So, why do so many fall for the scheme? Another simple answer: No one else cares either.

Freedom is necessary, but unchecked political power is not. And enough disinterest in responsibility, or those it's forfeited to, will loose freedom for everyone.

So, how are those Steelers doing, and, is Oprah still gaining weight?

Saturday, September 26, 2009

My truck.

Okay, so everyone has his or her own ideas about what's happened to the American auto manufacturing industry. It has lately been beaten so badly that Government ownership has been the choice of actions to keep it out of the morgue. Now, when you consider their successes lately, it's like handing a patient to an undertaker rather than a physician.

My intention here, however, is to offer my own experience as to why the industry is on it's knees. First, an introduction is required, though. My first experience of memory being transported in a vehicle was in my father's 1947 GMC half-ton pickup. It was military surplus, and, had been through a few other owners by 1965, none too kind, and, it was spartan to say the least as far as amenities. Heaters were an option in those days, and Dad had to save up to buy and install one. By 1968, a broken transmission part spelled it's doom. Since it would be another 15 years before the aftermarket parts industry for "classics" such as it would have been able to save it with reproduction parts, it was unceremoniusly dismantled in our driveway. The bed ended up being incorporated into a trailer. But who knows, had a part been found, it may have lived to be a coveted "collectible", or, to evolve into a "custom street machine." Point being that it certainly didn't know that the warranty was up; that decision was made for it.

About that time, my grandfather was still periodically operating a 1942 Chevrolet ton-and-a-half flatbed for hauling firewood. Another spartan, but, ultimately utilitarian machine, also of military heritage. No frills, just hard working. It fared better than Dad's pickup, I eventually bought it during my third year of high school and drove it as my first vehicle for another 15 years, off and on. I still have it, and, it still runs. And, I can get parts for it.

However, it not being the most practicle vehicle for a daily commuter, I settled on another, smaller truck in 1981. It was a red 1966 GMC stepside with only one option to set it out from the basic low-price model. It had a white cab above the bottom window line. Oh, and, I paid $300.00 for it. What a deal! Only 98,770 miles on it! And, no wheels, no engine, no sheet metal at all past the front of the firewall, and, no transmission. I bought it on blocks! But, General Motors built approximately six million trucks in the 1960-66 family group that shared many of the same parts, not to mention GM's penchant for using things like the same alternators on many other different brand vehicles. Couldn't go wrong there. So began the reconstruction.

I bought two new fenders at the local Chevrolet dealer to start with, and, from there, I scoured wrecking yards for a 50 mile radius as well as working through old buddies to assemble the rest of the parts, and, even though I took my sweet time, it came together fairly easily and quickly. After about four months, I had a freshly reconditioned engine bolted in between the new fenders, and, was able to drive it soon after. I had to save up for another two years to give it a fitting body and paint job, but, after applying a salvaged chrome grill (standard trim was white paint) to that beautiful new red paint job, I was turning heads like a 21 year old dance hall girl in front of an Elk's Lodge.

Now, this may just seem like another sentimental, fuzzy, feel good old truck story, but, now comes the analysis. That truck cost it's first owner $3,667.00 new, and it served him and others well for an expected fifteen years. But, at what should have been it's demise, is where the story really begins. The truck is much easier to repair because it was built not only before auto emissions standards, but, before the Environmental Protection Agency ever reared its ugly head. "Heresy!" you shout. "We must protect Nature!" you cry. How dare I? Well, I'm no stranger to controversy, so, let's go down that path for a miniute.

While the vaunted E.P.A. constantly claims credit for singlehandedly abating incomprehensible and questionable amounts of dastardly you-name-its in every corner of the fruited plain, thereby justifying it's bloated buget, inept administration, and strangling regulations, the truth is that, in the case of the automobile industry, it is just the embodiment of bureaucratic Federal control over problems that other government agencies are too inept to cope with on their own. And it manages this while costing manufacturers (and you) more money. For example, smog in the Los Angeles Basin should have been thinned or prevented by proper zoning and occupancy densities at the local level. Period. We in rural Nevada don't have smog, don't live like ants, and, have no need for power robbing smog pumps and expensive catalytic converters. I'd even be willing to bet that it's the same situation in Wyoming, Texas, Montana, and many other places where blanket Federal regulations cause everyone to share in a few others' misery. I know, some people are offended by simple, black and white solutions, but, I only go where logic leads. Back to the truck.

Not having to acquire such tools of the Envirowakos as catalytic converters and other related appliances right off saved over a thousand dollars on the resurection of the truck. Further, there were no faulty airbag connections to test and repair, no engine management computer with its myriad sensors to diagnose and outwit, no power steering pump to fight belts over, no brake booster leaking vacuum pressure, no fuel injection lines cracking and spraying, no transmission cooler leaking oil into the radiator, no turbocharger with frozen bearings, no aftercooler with bent fins to block the radiator air flow, and, no automatic door locks to trap your keys in the cab. "Shazam!" you exclaim. "How could it even be legal to produce such a simple, inexpensive, practical, easy to maintain truck! And, where can I get a new one!" Sorry. It isn't. And, you can't. Simply put, that truck wasn't built with anything it really didn't logically need to carry a thousand pounds of payload at seventy miles an hour safely all day, every day, for years. But, those brilliant engineers at Congress fixed that.

"Okay. so, why are we all doomed to watch our dashboards crack in the sun and our door panels crumble and decay while you're blissfully unplagued with such maladies?" you ask. Simple. A nice young rabblerouser named Ralph Nader (originator of such needless maintenance items as the "cyclops" brakelight) decided that self-centered Senators must know more about economical transportation than the people then producing it, (the same people, by the way,who were in a pissing match with him)so, he started working toward getting automobile design legislated. That's when the inviolable laws of physics began to be supplanted with legislative laws based on fantasy. Anyway, in 1968, some of the first "safety" rules for automobile construction began issuing forth from the Federal Government, including mandatory installation of seat belts (although it was already being done voluntarily by some manufacturers as early as 1958). Also, among other things, came a rule that said that you must apply padding of some sort on what were previously painted steel dashboards so that when your torso was flung forward because of the required lap belts in an accident, your mouth would be somewhat cushioned before your teeth were all knocked out and your jaw broken. That minor oversight was corrected by shoulder belts, but, Congress never moves backward, so, car interiors will forever more be cheap, rotting, smelly, plastic trash.

I would be remiss if I were to lay substandard construction strictly at the hands of dumb safety excuses, because there's another, equally dastardly, Federal excuse for legislated control over logical manufacturing procedures. It is seemingly harmlessly known simply as CAFE. What, a restaurant? No. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. My truck was built before any such idiocy as the thought that you could defy physics and legally demand that a given amount of hydrocarbon molecules produce infinately expandable amounts of energy upon combustion. An automotive engineer understands that burning an ounce of gasoline produces a definite amount of work. A physicist can explain why. But, only a Congressman can dictate that if that value is not exceeded, someone will pay!

Another inviolable rule is that no one can force a Congressman to understand anything he doesn't care about. So, what to do? The engineer's only choice is to do less with the same amount of fuel. What? Why not more? Once again, he has to work with physics. If you have to move a pound of steel in a paintable, dent and sun resistant, easily maintained door panel down the road a mile, and it takes a certain amount of fuel to produce the necessary work to accomplish that, but, it only takes a third of that weight in sunlight-decaying plastic to replace that pound of steel, you can move a less massive, less well constructed door panel that mile with less fuel. "Aha!," you exclaim. "But he can move it three times as far." Well, the problem is, less massive, less well constructed...... you get the idea. Now you're hurtling down the road like a loose Space Shuttle tile in a plastic ball full of expensive, dangerous contraptions designed to substitute for that all important steel shell that protects me, and, saved my father's life in a rollover accident several years ago in a similar truck. Your freedom to pay less for a well constructed vehicle that fits your needs has been hijacked by Government's need to dictate the opinions of others to you through control of your purchasing power.

Now, as for those brainwashed do-gooders that like to point to statistics that claim to justify mandatory "safety devices," where are the cries of "foul murder" when, as happened just today during a local motorcycle event, an accident claimed the life of a passenger of a bike that hit a bump in the highway and caused the driver to loose control. I'm sure that, along with her customary tank top, cutoff shorts, sandals, and tattoos, she was probably protected by the mandatory helmet. Why didn't anyone legislate that that machine come with mandatory training wheels, and, a carbon fiber cocoon with airbags? What? No self-respecting biker would buy it? Well, at least if they don't vote with their ballots, they are still, for now, able to make their own decisions and vote with their money.

But, you say, "the airbags and crush bumpers and seat belts make me feel safer." There you go again, giving up liberty for perceived security. More steel makes me feel safer. Simple physics. "But, we all have to pay for other people's injuries through higher insurance rates" claim insurance agents, and, their partners in crime, the Highway Patrol. Let's take another side trip. Normally, I don't begrudge a free enterprise making whatever the industry's market will bear. And there are circumstances where dealing with insurance companies can be beneficial. But, when they use scare tactics to lobby for a state mandated industry franchise to guarantee themselves a paycheck at MY expense, I get a little peeved. If I'm a responsible driver, why should I always have to financially share in other people's missadventures? At one time, auto insurance was nothing more than a prudent option that you were free to choose if you felt it necessary. Sort of like adding oil to your engine if you wanted it to last longer. Accidents were settled by legal means. They ultimately still are, you just have a third-party gorilla involved. People were more attentive to their driving, though, because they didn't have the perception of buying off the responsibility for their actions.

You never come out well with auto insurance. You bet against yourself, and, if you "win" and don't need their service because you're a skillfull, responsible driver, you loose the money spent on your premiums. Money gone forever. And, if you loose, well, you're likely injured, and, those premiums didn't prevent that, so you continue to pay anyway. Yes, they cover some bills, fight over others, and, disallow still others, but, none of that can make up for enduring two weeks in traction or major surgery when responsible driving would likely have avoided all of that.

Not to mention that they never use all of that money to pay the real value of repairs. If you have a 20 year old vehicle that you depend on to get to work and that you have invested five grand into for restoration or upgrades, they'll still only give you a few hundred bucks for it when it gets a dented fender because the fender repair cost twice as much as they want to "value" your vehicle at. To hell with you and the other $4,500.00 investment. And the years of premiums that would have well covered the repairs. There went my freedom to choose how to manage my repair money. And, I'll get cheerfully fined by the State if I don't support this Ponzi scheme, adding to their coffers, but, still not preventing one dented fender. Ninety-seven percent of which could be inexpensively prevented by forcing drivers to be more responsible by stiff fines for lawless driving, and, making them PERSONALLY responsible for their own carelessness. For example, if someone backs over your wheelbarrow in your tulip bed behind your front fence while texting gibberish to giddy cohorts, you file a lean against their car, income, or other property for the value of the damages. They pay or else. "But, what of people who cause accidents who have no assets or means to pay," you say? Well, what about those ubiquitous scofflaws, the "uninsured motorists"?

One reason I keep my truck is that it DOESN'T have airbags. Seems it doesn't need them. Makes me feel kinda independent, like a biker. And, considering the deaths they've caused over the years, safer.

I've drifted off the main message, the one I wanted to convey to General Motors (or, Government Motors, or whatever.) Since I began my odysey with the red truck over eighteen years ago, and, while it celebrates it's forty-third year on the planet, it has cost me, maintenance, fuel, insurance, registration, and capital expenditure included, an average of $232.00 a month to operate in daily service. It has done that for me for 246,000 miles. On top of someone else's 98 thousand. And, I can put it into brand new condition with my skills and $4,500.00. You see, it doesn't know how old it is, it just reacts to how it's treated. God forbid that the Government finds out how well it's performed, they'll try to kill it. (Remember "Cash for Clunkers"?)

Let's see the local GMC dealer with a comparable new truck match that. I'd bet that I can buy a lot of gas for the difference. Or, parts.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009


Flipping through an old notepad from 1994, I happened upon an entry from May of that year that brought back a poignant memory which has a timeless relevance. My mission on that day was an errand trip for one of my employers (I often have two or more at a time) which lead me to a local hardware store to procure a couple of band saw blades. These were made into "bands" by pulling a measured strip of blade material off a stock roll, cutting it, and electrically welding it end to end to form a useable loop that would fit your machine. Not a special operation in and of its self.

What made such a mundane task so memorable was the person performing the task. An older gentleman, early 70's, probably retired from some other career, but, with that particular firm since I had begun doing business there a decade earlier. While there were many much younger people employed there who could have managed the chore, this gentleman still set himself apart from the "watching the timeclock, rather be somewhere else" demeanor of the 20-somethings with his attitude. He was always genuinely interested in helping me, and businesslike in his execution of the task. He proffessionally and meticulously did the cutting, welding, and buffing as though he intended those blades to be the finest products the store had ever offered, and company reputation depended on it. Sincerity and integrity seemed to fill the air around that man, and the exceptional job he did was manifest evidence of the pride in workmanship he enjoyed in not only a job well done, but, in being able to demonstrate that it could be well done - for me. And he had no trouble displaying the same qualities to subsequent customers ad infinitum. I took the liberty of asking about his attitude, and, after thanking me for noticing, he explained that he came by it "honestly" as an adolescent, mainly the result of working with his father.

Now, the value of instilling such a legacy in families is so important that it will get it's own space later. But, while pride can and does get a bad rap in these days of political correctness, (unless it's displayed by a social group with an agenda) I believe it of intrinsic value to society in the propagation of civility, the lack of which is so emphatically decried. If you're confident in your own situation, that confidence is often noticed and literally "rubs off" onto other people, just like the smile that often accompanies it.

Once again, to paraphrase my 1945 reference work, (which will henceforth be cited as often as necessary) pride shows its self as a consciousness of "upright conduct", noble actions, or the like; a noble self esteem resulting from an appreciation of one's own dignity, character, or position; in other words, self respect. With the parenthetical allusion in the last paragraph duly noted, pride under these definitions must originate with motivation and integrity. Like respect, it must be earned by deeds guided by morality to be genuine, and cannot be appreciated, or, even warranted, without that legitimacy. With the credibility of that legitimacy, however, and, displayed in the manner of the gentleman at the hardware store, pride can be a powerful motivator for civil interaction in society from which we all benefit. It can move one from a collectivized, initiative lacking, and amorphous "yes, we can" to a self determining "yes, I will" and, ultimately, to a ruggedly individualistic and self reliant "yes, I did."

Pride is indeed something to aspire to. And, for the personal benefit, if for no other reason, I highly reccommend we all do.

Taking for granted that not all of us have the luxury of being able to always manage a positive outlook at work, let it be noted that the gentleman at the hardware store was not subject to the turnover rate of the other younger employees.

I would think that many of you have had a similar experience to mine that day long ago, but, can you remember how often or when?

Sunday, August 23, 2009


Hypocrisy. We all know what it means. Some of us more acutely than others. Simply, as I understand it, it is a tendency to say one thing and do another, usually, as the result of a breakdown of personal integrity. And, it runs a broad range, from, say, telling all your friends that you think one brand of beer in the clubhouse cooler is the most exquisite experience of your life so that they'll drink it, leaving your REAL favorite alone, to infinitely more serious issues, like infidelity in marriage, or, my favorite example, corruption in politics. In doing some cursory research on this subject, I consulted both my 1938 and 1945 dictionaries, each from different publishers, one a large library edition, the other a condensed school version. One indicated that it was "pretending to be what one is not; the putting on of an appearance of virtue which one does not possess". The other, while agreeing, added "a condition of thought and feeling different from that which appears; a deception as to real character and feeling, especially in regard to morals". The synonym list was also revealing; deceit, sanctimony, sham, pretense. Now, why would I, you ask incredulously, use antique dictionaries for research any more than you would use a 60 year old phone book to find a local tire dealer? Well, here's my reasoning: Because there is a tendency to "update" new dictionaries to reflect modern usage, which often includes corruption of terms that cloud the original meanings, I find it useful to use the older versions to filter out much of that corruption to get much more efficiently to the "root" of a meaning. While it's commendable of publishers to keep everyone abreast of the latest word and phrase coinages, I do not support the morphing of traditional meanings because the effect tends to be revisionism affecting the proper interpretation of rather important issues, like history, or documents, like The Constitution of the United States or the Bible, for example. So, while I've learned an appreciation for newer references for obvious reasons, I found it necessary to defer to non-corrupted authorities to determine the real meaning of hypocrisy. I found it significant that there were references to it at least as far back as the writings of the Bible, (And the hypocrite's hope shall perish. -Job viii. 13.) which indicates that it was a concept that was historically well known. As to my reference works' publishing dates, it was very active at that time in Europe under the Nazis, to be sure. And, it has certainly shown its ugly head back through the times of the Roman emperors, and further still, to the reaches of recorded history. But, I like to think that, unlike this day and age, where it's so rampant as to be accepted as normal behavior, especially in government, there was a time in these States where hypocrisy was far enough below the general public's moral standards as to not be prevalent enough to warrant public mention, let alone attention. The sanctimony displayed by people practicing hypocrisy, and, which almost always attends it, is demonstrated to give it implied credibility. Ironically, however, that too is a hypocrisy, as hypocrisy cannot by definition logically support credibility. It merely provides, unfortunately, a healthy foundation for cynicism. It's all a sham. Therefore, those who practice it cannot be logically supported, either. But it continually amazes me how many and how much are supported illogically. In this era of brazen hypocrisy, the very best defense against the pestilence it can visit on our lives is vigilance, so while one might find it acceptable to run a red light at a quiet intersection to rush home to vote for a candidate on a television talent contest, a more important vote to risk life and limb for by far is the one on Election Day. Take the time, learn the truth about the issues and candidates, and don't let hypocrisy become completely mainstream by allowing those who practice it to gain power. Since this blog is a new undertaking for me, it will obviously see refinement, so I will not be offended by critiques, although, I will choose as to whether to consider them. Thoughts?