HOW DO WE DE-ESCALATE THE VIOLENCE AGAINST POLICE?

Over the first eight months of 2015, American police killed 776 people, while British police killed exactly one. American police are eight times as likely to kill a citizen, and ten times as likely to die on the job, as their essentially unarmed British counterparts.   

It is difficult to compare policing practices in different countries with different cultures and populations.  I respect the dangerous job police perform no matter where they do it.  And to be fair, it does make a lot more sense for every officer to be armed in the U.S., since so many citizens are armed.   London, as a whole, had 114 homicides and 1,662 gun crimes last year, in a population of 8.63 million. It's not even fair to compare.  I just think the tactical methods and training of most of the police in the U.S. has gone the wrong way.  

For example, police in the U.S. are trained similar to the military with the sole purpose to protect the lives of the police.  Yes, their slogan is to “protect and serve,” but in my opinion, their training seems more concerned with hunkering down until it is safe to proceed.   When the damage has already been done, they charge in sometimes using excessive force.  I am not an expert on police training in the U.S., but I think we need to have a discussion about what our response to the police should be and how the police should be trained.   
 

My own experience with police is limited, but when I do get stopped, it is far from a friendly experience.  I was immediately given commands and barked to by the officer without telling me what wrong I had done.  It was a form of intimidation that innocent people find offensive.  All the loud commands and aggressive behavior from the police does not induce a relaxed and peaceful response, especially from men.  I know police are trained to treat everyone the same according to political correctness.   Just like the Department of Homeland Security treats grandmothers and little children as terrorists at the airport for the same reason.  Both methods are demeaning and ineffective to creating a respected police force. 

 

We call policemen and firefighters heroes because they risk their life to save others.  But watching how their safety measures prevent them from disarming a shooter or running into a burning building seems to take away from that heroism.   They are taught not to risk their life for another.  I am not advocating sacrificing police and firemen and we do have too many lose their lives in the call of duty, but I am trying to provide some observations concerning how police practices have changed in my lifetime.  I may be too naïve having grown up watching Andy Griffith on TV policing the fictitious town of Mayberry.  I do like the fact that Andy was approachable and knew everyone in town.

Can we look at other police training practices that may provide a better model?    

Unlike the U.S. model of law enforcement, the British police have a thing they call Policing By Consent, based on the principles of Sir Robert Peel, who came up with the Metropolitan Police in 1829. It states that constables are citizens in uniform "who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." It's been the guiding principle for close to 200 years.  

Here are Peel’s nine principles:

1.       To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2.       To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. 

3.       To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. 

4.       To recognize always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. 

5.       To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. 

6.       To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. 

7.       To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.  (emphasis is mine) 

8.       To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. 

9.       To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.  

Do you agree some of these principles should be a part of police training in the U.S.? 

The British police training is designed to teach police how to disarm suspects wielding knives, guns, and foul language.  Each officer is equipped with an extendable metal stick called an asp and a can of “aggressive hairspray” laughably termed CS as if it's tear gas.  According to a London policeman, “one lesson that everyone who ever became a half-decent copper did take on board was that the most important piece of officer safety equipment we ever had was talk.”   Police are generally trained to de-escalate hostile situations and use minimal violence in response to a threat.  For example, the British police have interviews instead of interrogations.  Also, they are not allowed to lie to the suspect about the evidence they have.  

In a 2004 survey, 82 percent of Britain's Police Federation members said that they did not want to be routinely armed on duty, according to the BBC. At least one third of British police officers have feared for their lives while being on duty, but remained opposed to carrying firearms. But for the most part, many British police would like to have a Taser.  Basically, it comes down to the fact that their conflicts so very rarely involve firearms that they simply don't need them.  However, they would be the first to say if every drunk or crackhead I stopped to search had a concealed carry weapon, I would be the first to ask for a gun.  In terrorist or other situations involving a shooter, the British do have SWAT teams with expert snipers that are deployed.  

A police officer does not have to shoot to kill and, in several countries, a police officer does not even have to carry a gun. In Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Britain, and Ireland, police officers generally do not carry firearms.  Richard Hill, history professor at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, explains that New Zealand police were disarmed for routine work in 1886, following the principle of the British police that: “Constables are placed in authority to protect, not to oppress, the public.” For officers to carry guns would not just be unnecessary, he says, “but also antithetical to the values of civil society.”  

You may say, “But these countries don’t allow guns!”  But what about in Iceland, where there are an estimated 90,000 guns in a population of 323,000?  The country has one of the lowest global crime rates in the world and, the BBC reports, the majority of crimes that do occur don’t involve firearms.  So it is possible to police a population that owns guns and reduce violence too.  

In these countries where citizens don’t have access to guns, the police are rarely taken by surprise by a firearm. There are officers trained in how to handle firearms when necessary, and can respond to reports of a citizen with a gun by sending out an armed police officer. But another key difference between the US and elsewhere is training. Paul Hirschfield, an associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University, points out that US police officers are trained for an average of just 19 weeks. Compare that to police in Norway, who have three years of training before they’re fully qualified.  In Finland, officers have to get permission from a superior officer before shooting. In Spain, officers should fire a warning shot, then aim for non-vital body parts, before resorting to lethal shooting. “In the United States, you only shoot to kill. You only use deadly force,” says Hirschfield.  

It doesn’t help that the law in the United States gives fairly wide scope for police violence. Under the European Convention of Human Rights, police can only shoot if it’s “absolutely necessary” in order to achieve a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Meanwhile, in the US, police officers can shoot if there’s “reasonable” perception of a grave and imminent threat, which is a far more subjective standard. “What defines reasonable?,” says Hirschfield. “We have a society where it’s often considered reasonable to take a black person reaching into their waistband as a threat. The whole legal framework for determining whether lethal force is legal or not is premised on a flawed assumption that officers can determine what is reasonable.”  

“If you only have 19 weeks of training, you’re going to spend those on the most essential things. Unfortunately, in the United States, it’s about what you need to defend yourself. How you’re going to avoid getting hurt,” says Hirschfield. “If you have three years, you can also learn how to protect people, how to avoid these situations from arising in the first place. It fosters a whole different orientation and culture in law enforcement.”   

Just some food for thought, so please don’t accuse me of hating police.  I don’t. 

 

Excerpts taken from:

I Was A Cop In A Country With No Guns: 6 Startling Truths  By Charley Clark, July 12, 2016

How do police handle violence in countries where officers don’t carry guns?   By Olivia Goldhill, July 09, 2016

 

Time Marches On....

I have always been fascinated by time and clocks.  I have owned every kind of wristwatch from Timex watches that use a balance spring to a Seiko that uses a quartz crystal to a Casio that uses an “atomic clock.”  

 

It was fun asking another engineer at work what time it was and then comparing his watch to mine.  It would invariably start an argument as to which watch was the most accurate.  I would smile and say, “Well, my watch is synchronized every day against the atomic clock at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Fort Collins, CO.  It is accurate to within 1 second per 138 million years.^”  That usually ended the argument.  Only engineers would argue about the accuracy of a watch. 

The NIST operates a radio station, WWVB, which has for half a century been the nation’s official time keeper.  While millions of Americans are fast asleep, clocks and wristwatches across the country wake up and lock on to a radio signal beamed from the base of the Rocky Mountains.  The 60 kHz signal contains a message that keeps the devices on time, helping to make sure their owners keep to their schedules and aren’t late for work the next day.  In 2011, NIST estimated the number of clocks and wristwatches equipped with a WWVB receiver at over 50 million. 

Some manufacturers refer to their radio controlled clocks as "atomic clocks", which isn't really true. An atomic clock has an atomic oscillator inside (such as a cesium or rubidium oscillator). A radio controlled clock has a radio inside, which receives a signal that comes from a place where an atomic clock is located.  At 60 kHz, there isn't enough room on the signal (bandwidth) to carry a voice or any type of audio information.  Instead, all that is sent is a code, which consists of a series of binary digits, or bits, which have only two possible values (0 or 1).  They are sent at a very slow rate of 1 bit per second, and it takes a full minute to send a complete time code, or a message that tells the clock the current date and time.

Once your radio controlled clock has decoded the signal from WWVB, it will synchronize its own clock to the message received by radio. Before it does so, it applies a time zone correction, based on the time zone setting that you supplied. The time broadcast by WWVB is Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), or the time kept at the Prime Meridian that passes through Greenwich, England.   UTC is the primary time standard by which the world regulates clocks and time.

 

Engineer David Andrews (left) and technician Robert Oase (right) are shown by the WWVB transmitter in 1963. Credit: NIST

 

Keep in mind, though, that the accuracy of the watch will also depend on the update frequency, because between updates the watch’s internal clock is running freely, and the overall accuracy is determined by the drift the internal clock experiences. 

Well, enough of the technical stuff because today that has all changed.   It is time for me to get a new wristwatch.  It is called a “smart watch.”  This watch uses a satellite-based Global Positioning System (GPS) which uses two onboard cesium atomic clocks and as many as two rubidium atomic clocks as backup to accurately determine the location, height and current time.  Smart watches have built-in GPS receivers to periodically set the correct time from various satellites.  This means that GPS can achieve an accuracy level of 50 ns deviation from the UTC.   A nanosecond is 1/1,000,000,000 of a second.   

My wife just ordered me the Samsung Galaxy Gear S Smart Watch for Christmas.  My old Casio watch disappeared when my 2-year-old grandson found out he could reach the lid of our trash can and throw things away.   Keys, cell phones and other items have gone missing from our house.  I am not about to let him play with the new watch.

 The Samsung Galaxy Gear S Smart Watch

                         

The first 4G wireless network-connected watch with a 2-inch curved AMOLED display and interchangeable watch faces allows you to not only tell time, but check emails, answer calls, view GPS maps and retrieve turn-by-turn directions.  It also will track your fitness goals and monitor your heartbeat.   You can also reply to texts with a virtual keyboard along with word prediction and voice command.     It has Bluetooth so I can sync with my car and talk hands-free while driving.  I know to keep both hands on the wheel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am old enough to remember Dick Tracy and his wristwatch.  I dreamed of being able to talk over the phone by just holding up my wrist.  That was a real miracle at a time when phones were not wireless.  I know this Christmas present is a “toy” but I am always leaving my phone at home or not charging it.  Now I can use the smart watch along with my Samsung Galaxy S5 and I don’t have to be in the same room. 

What a joy it has been to see how far technology has come.  We can argue it wastes time or interrupts our life, but the sheer accomplishment is worth talking about.  Can I live without it…..Sure.  But why not enjoy what technology has to offer.     

Time Marches On!                   

 

Goodbye Tiny Tim!

 

Recently, I came across an article about Tiny Tim, the ukulele player and singer from the 1970’s.   Some of you younger readers may not know him, but any of the “Boomers” that watched Laugh In or the Johnny Carson Show will remember how outrageous he was.

He was a performance artist before anyone knew what that was.   He had long stringy hair and pancake makeup and looked like something out of a horror film.  He sang old 1920’s tunes in a falsetto voice and would blow kisses during the applause.  He was a real fruitcake.  

The funny thing about his act is you did not know if he was faking it or serious.  It was a little embarrassing or awkward to laugh at him.  One of the highest rated TV shows of that era was Tiny Tim’s wedding to Miss Vicki on the Johnny Carson Show.  Tiny Tim became a regular on the show.

Tiny Tim’s popularity crested at the end of the 1970’s and had a short revival in the 1980’s. but he finally lost his moment of fame.  He still loved performing and would show up in the most unusual places.  In June of 1996, Melissa and I travelled to the Bahamas on a day cruise.  The cruise boat was very small and resembled more a ferry boat that a cruise liner. 

We enjoyed the ride and when we went into the tiny lounge, we were surprised to find Tiny Tim was performing.  The lounge was also tiny so we were sitting just a few feet away from the stage.   It was awkward at first because we didn’t want to openly laugh at Tiny Tim, but it was so hilarious.  He looked old and tired.  It was kind of sad.

Later that year while performing at a ukulele festival in Montague, Massachusetts, Tiny Tim suffered a heart attack right as he started singing “Tiptoe through the Tulips.”  He later died in the hospital on September 28, 1996.  He was buried with his ukulele.  He was survived by his third wife and daughter from his first marriage.  She was appropriately named “Tulip.”

I wish I had gotten an autograph or at least shook his hand.  Rest in Peace Tiny Tim!

                              

 

 

Welcome to the Real World

As the world's largest television network, MTV broadcasts to more than 300 million households around the world and with this huge following continues to influence the path that the citizens of cultural society travel.  MTV continues to exert substantial influence upon the youth within its core demographic and an ever-changing media culture.

Seeing how much they appealed to the youth, MTV’s producers began making reality shows on the side.  Involving people who went through real life situations, these dramas attracted the youths of the world and soon MTV changed from a music video channel to a reality broadcasting center. 

In 1992, MTV launched the first reality TV show called The Real World.  The show was inspired by the 1973 PBS documentary series An American Family.   It focused on the lives of a group of strangers who auditioned to live together in a house for several months, as cameras record their interpersonal relationships.  The premise of the show was narrated as “This is the true story... of seven strangers... picked to live in a house...work together and have their lives taped... to find out what happens... when people stop being polite... and start getting real...The Real World.” 

Of course, like most reality shows, there was little “real” about it.  The show was directed and often the story lines scripted to create as much drama as possible.  Most of the original cast admit that the more difficult they made it for the other residents, the better the ratings of the show.  The cast lived in a massive, 4000-square-foot duplex in Soho and were paid $2,600 for their time on the show.  Free room and board and none of them had a real job.  That doesn't sound like the real world to me.

However, this type of programming had a real impact on the generation after the Baby Boomers.  Generation X born from 1965 to 1976 were in their formative teenage years when this show became popular.  Gen Xers spent less time with their parents than previous generations of children had. First recognized as latchkey kids, this generation found themselves home alone and taking care of themselves and their siblings, while their parents worked. Divorce was common.  So watching this kind of TV docu-drama appealed to them.  It affected the culture and lifestyle choices of a whole generation.  Even the furniture (IKEA) in the MTV loft is still popular with this generation today.

Why this background information on MTV?  Because today, Baby Boomers are moving back with their Generation X children and experiencing a whole new alternative lifestyle.  Single-parent and blended families convinced Gen Xers that “families” come in all shapes and sizes. More inclusive of others and accepting of differences from themselves or their experiences, this generation accepted and embraced diversity.  Gen Xers are pragmatic, individualistic, reject rules, mistrust institutions, obsess about technology and are closer to their friends than family.  Sound familiar?

So what is it like to move back in with this generation?   Very difficult at first.  Depending on your personality and previous independent lifestyle, it can be downright brutal.  Many Gen Xers were forced to move back in with parents while in their 20s and were ungraciously dubbed the “boomerang generation.”  Now the Baby Boomers are becoming the “boomerangs” and returning to a new home where “family” takes on a whole new meaning.

How common is this new communal living?  About 28 percent of people 50 to 64 years old lived alone in 2009, according to AARP, and while the portion of those living with unrelated people is only about 1 percent, the cohort approaching retirement age is so large that the number of older people sharing housing has risen considerably. In 2000, there were about 820,000 households where single people 46 to 64 shared housing with non-relatives; by 2013, that number had risen to 1,090,000, said Rodney Harrell, AARP’s senior adviser for housing.

Few of America’s 78 million 49- to 67-year-olds have any intention of aging the way their parents have, wedded to their independence at all costs, even if it ultimately means social isolation.  However, the baby boomers can envision all sorts of alternate living arrangements. “To the older generation, living alone is the only measure of success, but the boomers’ comfort with interdependence means there are many options,” says Dr. Bill Thomas, an influential geriatrician and author based in New York. “Aging in community, rather than all alone, is going to make the boomers’ experience of old age different than anything that ever came before.”

While admitting communal living isn't for everyone, “I expect that boomers are going to find the idea less radical than older people,” says Joanne Tuller, a 58-year-old community health center administrator. “Boomers are community-oriented, they went to college and lived in dorms, the hippie [experience] makes them more open to living with people they’re not related to.”

There are compelling demographic reasons why Tuller’s prediction is good news. For one, the pool of family caregivers is shrinking. Some 1 in 4 boomers never had children; those who did may have sons and daughters thousands of miles away. One-third of the population will face old age single — either widowed, divorced, or never married. Already, 4 million 50-plus women live in US households with at least two other women of similar age.  They are called the “Golden Girls” commune.

Communal living is a kind of alternative lifestyle. It represents an option different in significant ways from the traditional model of independent living in which single individuals or couples live alone, each in a fully self-contained dwelling unit.  Do you want to live more efficiently and reap the benefits of a closer community? Communal living is a great strategy for getting and staying out of debt while building community, resilience and security in a tenuous economy. But it requires a change in attitudes.

Economic pressures in the future will necessitate more extended family living, smaller housing footprints in square footage per person, and less single-family housing. For young adults who have school debt to overcome, or who are saving for a home, various forms of extended family living are a logical solution. 

The number of multigenerational households has been steadily rising because of the economic hardships people are experiencing today.  According to the AARP, multigenerational households have increased from 5 million in 2000 to 6.2 million in 2008.  The importance of an extended family is one that many people may not realize, but having a support system and many forms of income may help people today because of the difficulties in finding a job and bringing in enough money.

My wife and I just moved into a large house with my daughter, son-in-law and grandson in Austin, TX.  The house is large enough to provide each of us with a bedroom and bath.  The house also has two living rooms for our private space.  The large kitchen and dining room is shared as are meals and house chores.  Bills are split four ways.  It remains to be seen if this arrangement will be cost-saving for us or not.  Apartment rents are higher in Austin than anywhere in Texas and utilities are owned by the city and continue to rise in cost. 

Austin is known for being weird and most of the local government is run by the “green” party.   There has also been a large influx of Californians that influence the local culture.  We now have to carry our own shopping bags with us and the roads have been squeezed to provide bicycle lanes.  So living in a “commune” may be just the style for this city.  I have never seen myself as the “hippie” type.  I am a retired engineer with over 40 years of experience and somewhat set in my ways.  

I guess I am more like Archie Bunker than “Meathead” in All in the Family.

                        

The first weekend we moved in the rain.  This was our 24^th move in 40 years of marriage, so it is not an understatement to say I hate moving.   The following week, we all contacted a severe stomach flu which was horribly debilitating.   During this two week period, I noticed that there was always a crowd at the house.  Some of the crowd had gotten permission to sleep on the couch while promising to look for their own place.  Others were ex-roommates who had been told to leave, but never seemed to get the message.  All of whom ate our food stayed up late and talked loudly and endlessly.   Afternoon naps are now a thing of the past.

I was so upset with the new “alternative lifestyle” that I threatened to leave.  I still have a travel trailer hidden in the Texas Hill Country that would make a great “man cave.”  My leisure time has all but ended now that I have a grandson living with me.  I rarely get to sit in my recliner and watch TV when my toddler is getting into everything.   My daughter and son-in-law think nothing of ignoring the boy while completely absorbed in their iPhones.  I, on the other hand, can imagine all the hazards one boy can reach and I have to get up and see to him.  My wife keeps the grandson 10 to 12 hours a day, so I try not to bother her at night.

Amy Goyer, AARP multigenerational issues expert, said the most common multigenerational household is one with a grandparent as head of household and his adult children having moved in with their children, an arrangement usually spurred by the needs of one or both to combine resources and save money. The second most popular is a grandparent moving in with an adult child's family, usually for care-giving reasons. She noted that 2.5 million grandparents say they are responsible for the basic needs of the grandchild living with them. 

After making an appointment with my psychiatrist, I did some research for this blog post.  I realized that this move requires a major attitude adjustment.  I also realized that communal living requires agreements and arrangements for daily activities.  House meetings may be necessary to get everyone to sit down and discuss the issues that impact our lives.  I let it be known I was unhappy with the way things were happening.  My “room-mates” began to implement some changes regarding the noise, the crowds and the babysitting.

My son-in –law and my wife tackled the stack of boxes and unloaded all but a few.  They also organized and cleaned the house.  My son-in-law likes yard work and began raking leaves in preparation for mowing season.  He also takes out the garbage, cooks and does the dishes.  Not bad.   My wife does all the laundry and changes the diapers when I am gagging too much to get the job done.  My daughter works a full-time job and attends the University of Texas toward her bachelors’ degree.  I, on the other hand, hold my grandson in my arms and rock him to sleep at night after we have watched Thomas (the train) and Friends. 

There may be advantages to this type of living after all. 

             

Workin' for a Livin'

I started back to work this year after having retired in July 2011.   In my first post for this blog, I quit calling it retirement and started calling it renewal.   The Bible says we are "renewed" day by day. 

Well, I was fortunate to land a job with the state of Texas writing air permits for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).   I use the term fortunate because I found it difficult to land any kind of a job at my age.   Age discrimination really exists.   Of all the "protected" classes defined by the government, discrimination of older folks is the easiest type to get away with.  I heard that in the past, companies had to prove they did not discriminate because of "age", but a Supreme Court case changed all of that.   Now the individual has to prove the company discriminated against them.  With all the lawyers at their disposal, most companies aren't afraid of losing that battle.

I found the state of Texas was different.  They fully embrace these protections under the law and have a very talented and diverse work force.  It was a joy finding so many professional and friendly people here at the TCEQ.   The agency has a good understanding of what a "work-life" balance means and they provide their workers with adequate time off to spend with their families. 

The job is not stressful.   Well, it was at first while I was trying to learn the ropes, but it is getting easier by the day.  I have a good Team Leader who understands us old guys.  There are several retirees from the Air Force, Navy, Marines and Army working here.  I think I will start a new club for old guys.  We'll call it Club 60.   If other groups can have their ethnic and cultural clubs, why not old folks?

One reason I think I got the job was the fact I told them I didn't want to make much money.  I don't want to have to pay a lot of taxes and the Social Security Administration will penalize me if I make over a certain amount.  So I did the math and what I lose in SS payments, I save in health benefit costs.   It is a win-win for me.   The other bonus is the TCEQ re-instated almost five years of service time for when I worked for them in the 1970's.  I didn't think anyone kept records that long.  In five more years, I will be able to retire.....er....I mean renew my life again.  I will then have five small streams of income to finance my frugal life style. 

There are times when I find the new job a little boring.  I chose this job because it wasn't stressful and I get to go home every day at 5 PM.   When I have worked here six months, I will get vacation and I can flex my hours to avoid the Austin traffic.  But, not having the freedom I had before and the ability to travel across this beautiful country of ours, makes me a little sad.  I used to brag "I had all the time in the world and money was no object."  The truth is at some point you run out of both.

Getting old is not for cowards and neither is retirement.  Being able to retire and maintain the same lifestyle is almost impossible today.  Even if you saved enough money, your lifestyle will still change.  You no longer work with the same people or have the same routine.  You have less worries from the job, but you manage to have a whole new set of worries.  Health becomes a major concern.  Relationships change as you get older.  You often get overlooked or excluded.  Your older friends may have the same health problems that keep them from participating in all the things you once enjoyed.  I was never very athletic, so I don't miss all that sweaty stuff.

But you do feel a loss.  You begin to evaluate what you really want to do with the rest of your life and what is most important to you.  A lot of activity that I once did doesn't seem as important now.  Being with people seems more important than buying things or going places.  I guess the only thing we take with us when we die are memories and relationships.  I don't want to sound morbid, but I do want to be serious about the rest of my life.

My goals are to stay healthy and to work to get out of debt.  Melissa and I have incurred some debt due to taxes and other expenses during our "RV days."   We have a five year plan to get out of debt, achieve another pension from the state of Texas,  help raise our new grandson until he starts school and make as many friends as possible.  Plans are good, but I have also learned to live one day at a time.

We have sold our home and possessions twice and started over with nothing but the smiles on our faces and the open road.  Most everything in our lives is temporary.  We have very few "roots" in this earth, but we are looking for treasures in heaven.   We are investing our time in our grandson and daughter and we still teach a Bible study for adult men and women.  So, I guess we are giving ourselves away along with our possessions.

I read a book called "Die Broke" that teaches you to give away all your money while you are alive and literally die broke.   One of its' sayings is "The last check you should write will be to the undertaker and it should bounce!"   I think I will qualify.

In saying all of this, I am reminded that it is presumptuous to think we have complete control of our lives.  So many other factors come into play and saying we will do this or that tomorrow or next week is just an exercise in self-will.   God's will for my life may be different from what I planned.  But I have come to know that God's will is always better than anything I could imagine.   So.....I'll take it one day at a time and leave the rest to Him.
 
For now, I feel I am doing what I am supposed to do and living where I should be living.  Although it is sometimes boring and I get weary with the daily grind, I have peace in my heart of hearts.  As a Christian, I mostly have "leaving" on my mind. I do believe in heaven and I so want to go there. When I watch the news, I am convinced that I won't have to wait very long. My last goal is to cheat the undertaker and the grave. I want to make the Rapture and rise to meet the Lord in the air.  These are more than goals or plans, these are God's promises.
 
So....when the outlook seems bad, try the uplook.