Mixed Nuts

I've got several things on my mind this morning so rather than saying "I opine" which I think is rather a pretentious word I will just give you my opinions. :~) (by the way I read that it was about 25 years ago when that little symbol was used for a grin . My how time flies. You can also use this for a rose @------ but then I guess I can't use it all because part of my "rose" translate to Html code so you will just have to imagine the leaves.

Telling people what they mean to you.

I had a really nice thing happen at Grand Lodge.  While I was having lunch on Friday one of our Past Grand High Priest's came over and sat down with me.  We had a nice chat and during that chat he reminded me of an incident which happened when he was Grand High Priest.  There was a York Rite Center that was having a dispute between some of its members.  doesn't matter what about but he had to go to mediate.  He asked me as the "then" chairman of Jurisprudence for advice and I asked him if he wanted me to attend the meeting.  He said yes and so I went with him. I got out the regalia (which usually remains in the closet) and took the Code book with me and went along.  There was one member there who you could tell wanted to have a big fight and he kept walking up and down.  (Called me Dr. which I am NOT and besides we don't use those titles in Masonry, of which fact I kindly informed him) and yet he was unable to convince the majority that what he wanted was the course of action to take.  

I really didn't do much but sit there but the GHP appreciated having me there.  I got a kick out of it Friday when he expressed his appreciation and then he stated "someone told me that I should 'tell' Jay Cole Simser to do something". 

 He said, "I told them that you don't 'tell' Jay Cole Simser to do anything.  You have to ask him."

I didn't know he knew me that well.  I've never thought about it before but I am like that.  If you ask me.  I will bend over backwards to do everything I can do for you but if you get "in my face" my hubris gets up and gets in my way.  Not always a good thing but that is the way it is.  

Anyway I appreciated him telling me that.  Sometimes we need to hear what we did is appreciated.  Thank you my Brother. 

Enthusiasm

I really wish my camera had not "died on me" (See DUH below) at Grand Lodge because I would have loved to have gotten the picture of our Arcadia delegation at Grand Lodge. We not only send the Master and Wardens (and pay their expenses) but we also send the Senior Deacon and we had a Past Master who is a Grand Lodge Committeeman in attendance. Bryce Hildreth dressed them all in bow ties and they were all at the Saturday morning session wearing his bow ties with great big grins on their faces.

Much of the time at State Meetings people get bored or "tired butt syndrome" and kind of doze off. Not so these guys. They were attentive and listening and participating. Paul even went to the mike to ask a question. Of course his question did not get answered but no matter he asked it.

After I got home two of the guys contacted me and both of them told me about some of the plans they had made in the car on the way home. It looks to be an exciting four years ahead for Arcadia Lodge if things go as planned. Way to go guys!

"Grand Meetings"

I tell you these can just be awful. So many times they spend so much time just dragging in lines of people to be introduced and reading off long lists of titles, then standing people up to give grand honors etc. that they just wear a person out. When I still smoked I used to go out for a cigarette when this activity was going on. I remember one Past Grand High Priest, who when it came time for his Jurisprudence committee report, they would have to send some one to the "coffee" shop to drag him into the meeting. Many of us will find a spot to sit and visit with our friends.

I was coming into the meeting on Saturday and went over to buy a couple of the Masonic Cookbooks they have for sale and I got three great big "hugs" from three of the ladies. (You know how I feel about those). As I rode up the escalator I could look down at the women sitting around visiting and waiting for the men to finish their business I thought that just perhaps they were the best part of Grand Lodge. I have made so many friends in Masonry and the Brothers and their wives and being able to see them is an important part of the activity.

I am not fond of the Banquets, however. Feeding large amounts of people is not something that most places do well. I guess that they had a great meal on Thursday night bur Friday the pork chop was "tough as whang leather" (whatever that is). But the company at the table was good and I even found a Blog reader at the table.

Againsters

I didn't even know if that was really a word when I typed it and I guess it isn't because Blogger underlined it. Oh well, you can figure out what it means. They are the people who disagree with everything. They don't have an original idea in their own heads and so when someone suggests something, a group activity or project, They disagree and they proclaim so loudly. Brother Dunn over at A Beacon or Masonic Light has a posting on this. Here. Obviously I agree with him and so I linked to it.

When I taught school I had the students write a Constitution for their class. We used a book provided by the Scottish Rite which had "Freedom Documents" including the Constitution which we just celebrated on Constitution Day (A little known holiday but which fell at just the right time for me to begin the class constitution project. So nice of them to schedule it that way). I figured that I was preparing them to live in a democracy so we should practice democracy. So, under my loose guidance, they dividend into committees and wrote their constitutions. They had to operate under it for the rest of the year. They had meetings, elected officers, appointed committees and planned things - especially their parties. They still got their parents involved in some ways but not much and it was theirs. Then when it was all over they had a "post-mortem" and discussed what went right and what they had difficulties with and what they would do differently the next time.

What all this is leading to is the person who would put every idea that anyone had and disagree with it. They would say things like "that dumb" or " I don't wan to do that" (In Lodge they say "We've never done it that way before." When that happened, I got wrathy. I would put on my "teacher had" and give a little lecture about how one negative person could keep a larger group of people from doing something that just might turn out to be fun." I think you all know the type. Good thing they weren't setting up the good old US of A or we'd still be trying to adopt a Constitution.

Editorials

I think one of the reasons I started this Blog was because I was always reading editorials in the paper and thinking of a response to what the person was saying. Some of them I agreed with others just "ticked" me off. I had written letters to the editor before and some of them had even gotten published. I didn't like it when they didn't get published, however, and I kind of had the feeling that, perhaps, just perhaps I had gone on rather too long in my writing. It probably always a frustration so now I can put things on here and people (all 30 or so of you - although I did get to 75 readers once) can read them or not. They (you) can always post responses to this also but either no one is interested enough in what I write or I am not controversial enough, for that to have happened so far.

So I am going to give you my thoughts on some things I read in the editorials this morning.
The letters on gay marriage just tick me off. They seem to think that marriage should only be about procreation and that marriage has been between a man and a woman since time immemorial (remember that phrase signifies a lie) - Well I will give you my "take" on that. Marriage was originally about "property." A woman was considered a man's property. This was necessary because they figured out what caused babies and so the man (in order to know that a baby was actually his) had to make sure that the woman did not have intercourse with anyone other than him. Marriage was not one man and one woman then nor is it now. King Solomon had many wives. He also had concubines and his love for Jonathan "was greater than the love for women" They found a tomb in ancient Egypt of two men who had lived together as a couple. Today we practice serial pologamy. A man (or a woman) can have many partners just one at a time. Not too long ago and indeed in some parts of the US today Mormons could have more than one wife.

Marriage is (should be) about commitment, caring, love and providing a safe place for children. Anybody can do that! Not just one man and one woman. (My uncle once stated that the ONLY reason to get married was to have and raise children -  That is just BS. Why do couples in their 70' s and 80"s get married?)   People who get upset because other combinations want to do those things should go live in the woods....no come to think of it I like the woods. How about the desert? Then perhaps, the rest of the world can settle down and become rational. They are already dried up in their thinking anyway. 

The idea of women as property is antiquated. We really need to pass the equal rights amendment. Women are treated even worse in other countries. And the punishments for women is usually harsher than those for men.

People who use the Bible as the "word of God" are also just wrong. God did not write the Bible. Men did. Some of them were good men and were probably divinely inspired. But then there are good people in the world today and I think some of them are divinely inspired also. There are also evil men who masquerade at good men who lead thousands of people down the wrong path. These myrmidons (The Myrmidons of Greek myth were known for their loyalty to their leaders, so that in pre-industrial Europe the word "myrmidon" carried many of the same connotations that "robot" does today.) hold up their Bibles and proclaim them the word of God and promise to follow them (blindly) - In the church I used to belong to we say "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life." I take that to mean that error has crept into scripture over the years since it was originally written. I must be a thinker and not allow that error to guide me. I don't think all the football players are "unclean" because they touch pigskin. Leviticus 11:6-8 - " Exodus 35:2 prohibits working on the Sabbath and clearly states offenders should be put to death. I'll see you and your sack of stones at the local convenience store next Sunday! Or is that Saturday." Don't give me grief about this there are people "out there" who are leading others to believe these things. I really do shudder to think about what life would be like if they ruled our country.

Along those lines there is a letter to the editor today about how there is a movement afoot to impeach the judge who ruled that gay marriage was unconstitutional because it was unfair. They are calling him (as I predicted) an "activist" judge. I don't think so! His job is to interpret the law in light of the Constitution to see if it is in accord with the principles stated therein. If you read his ruling (and I have) you will see that he did nothing for which he cold be impeached. He followed the rule of law and struck it down because it did not fit those principle. I applaud him and all others who are willing to stand up for what is right. After all that is why we have three branches of government.

Well I have probably rambled on long enough. If you read this and you agree you can put in a comment. If you don't agree you can also put in a comment. It, of course, will be up to me to decide whether or not your comment will stay on the blog. If you don't like that start your own blog.  It's free and fairly easy.  I might even link to it if you ask nicely.    HUGS, jcs