Why We Have an Electoral College to Select the President

When we individual voters vote for candidates for President of the United States, we are actually voting for electors who meet later to cast the official votes electing the President. These electors are expected to (not required to) vote for the candidates they represent.

Some Reasons for the Electoral College System
There are multiple reasons that our Founding Fathers decided to do things this way.

One reason is that it gives a bit more weight to the less populous states than the popular vote, making it less likely that a few populous states would control the election.

Another reason is that the Founding Fathers distrusted the general public and wanted to give a select group of chosen people the authority to make the final decision.

An additional reason is that in case of the need for multiple ballots to decide an election at a party primary convention (which sometimes happens in primary party conventions where no candidate gets the majority of the votes on the first ballot), it is easier for the "electors" (actually delegates in the primary election) to do the multiple votes than to have multiple elections.

In the general election in November, if no candidate receives the majority of the electoral votes, the United States House of Representatives selects the President from among the three candidates receiving the most votes. The United States Senate would select the Vice President.

The Process of Becoming President

The process of becoming President was illustrated in a U.S. government poster revised in November 2014 that is pictured below in a photograph I took of it on March 15, 2023. A few things have changed since the 2014 poster, but the electoral college system remains in place.

Sources for More Information and Closing Thoughts
Numerous websites discuss the electoral college in more detail if you would like to learn more about it. Below I link to three of them:

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

The electoral college system isn't perfect. But it seems to have served reasonably well thus far.

NOTE: This post for Blogger, which was last revised on March 15, 2023, is to a large extent reprinted from a post I made on December 9, 2016, on Facebook.

The Benefits of Coal Mining

In recent years, the coal mining industry has come under attack from a variety of persons for various reasons. Many of the complaints of environmentalists and others are valid. But I would like to point out several of the benefits of coal mining.

Useful Products and Byproducts of Coal
Thousands of products are made out of coal and coal byproducts. For example, coal is used to produce many useful chemicals. Coal is not just used to generate heat and electricity, although the biggest use of coal is for those purposes. A webpage on The World Coal Association website is one source that lists a few of the thousands of uses of coal. A webpage on Reference.com is another.

Electricity and Heating Benefits of Coal Mining
Much electricity is still generated by coal, and historically coal has been the #1 energy source for producing electricity in the United States. Cheaper natural gas and oil prices have reduced coal's share in the energy market, but according to a United States Energy Administration webpage, in 2015 coal and natural gas each accounted for 33% of the energy share in electricity generation in the United States. Coal is expected to drop to #2 behind natural gas when 2016 data becomes available, but coal remains a major energy source for electricity generation in the United States.

Also, over the centuries that coal has been mined, the coal produced has generated heat to keep many homes and businesses warm. This has been done through fireplaces, coal stoves, coal furnaces, and radiators with steam heated by coal.

In addition, coal converted into coke has played a major role in the steel industry. Much coal was also used in the past for train locomotives, as well as steamboats.

Jobs and Company Towns
Coal mining generated a huge number of jobs directly, and many more indirectly through other companies and individuals that provided goods and services to miners and their families. In the rural Appalachian coal fields that were sparsely settled before coal mining companies brought people in, the coal companies actually built towns.

They built houses for miners, schools, company stores, churches, recreation centers, hospitals, and other businesses that provided goods and services to the miners and their families. In many cases the facilities provided to the miners were comparable to or better than those that the typical person in rural areas of the United States had at the time.

Coal has provided hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States over the years, as well as hundreds of thousands more in support industries related to coal. In southeastern Kentucky, where I am from, coal mining has been the biggest employer for a century. Coal mining companies brought huge numbers of immigrants to the area to mine the coal, and provided all the basic necessities for them (food, shelter, clothing, etc.) via the company towns they built.

The above photo is of a poster I received as a gift many years ago titled "Kentucky Coal Products Tree." I'm sorry that most of the print on the poster is not legible on the photo. I think these posters were given out to illustrate the many uses of Kentucky coal and coal's importance. This particular poster is taped on the side of my refrigerator, and it has some tears in it, as you can see in the photo. If someone knows who made the posters, please let me know, so I can properly credit them.

Closing Thoughts
As I close, I do want to make it clear that though the benefits of coal mining may have far exceeded its drawbacks during the centuries of mining, there have been problems. Coal mining has historically been a dangerous job. Pollution is generated in its production, transportation, and consumption.

Coal mining  companies often used unethical methods to acquire land and/or mineral rights on land. And there have been other problems over the years, such as labor disputes that sometimes became violent.

But, despite the problems, I think it is important to remember the very important role that coal mining has played historically in this country (and the world). Coal mining and the coal produced by it provided the fuel that enabled the Industrial Revolution to take place. Without coal mining, several things that we perhaps basically take for granted might not have happened as quickly or as well as they did: steel production, locomotives and railroads, electricity generation, and a huge number of products that we perhaps take for granted.

It may be time for coal mining to decline, and in another generation it may virtually cease if renewable fuels work out well. But let's not forget the positive role that coal played in our past and to a large degree still plays in our present.

And who knows? Maybe in another generation we'll find currently unforeseen environmental problems with renewable fuels like solar power. Much coal remains in the ground in various places, and improvements in methods of mining, transportation, and usage can potentially make it a much cleaner fuel in the future than it has been in the past.

Disclosure: Although I am not a practicing mining engineer, I do hold a mining engineering degree from the University of Kentucky, worked two summers in the mining industry during college, and some of my relatives worked in the mining industry, including both my father and paternal grandfather who worked as mining engineers.

Note: This article was last modified on January 23, 2017 when I added the picture of the "Kentucky Coal Products Tree."

Fracking Seems to Be Causing Numerous Earthquakes Via Wastewater Disposal

Energy companies that produce oil and natural gas by fracking, and dispose of huge quantities of wastewater containing chemicals as part of the process, seem to be causing a very large increase in the number of earthquakes in areas where fracking occurs.

A June 10, 2015 United States Geological Survey article titled "6 Facts about Human-caused Earthquakes" states "injecting fluid underground can cause earthquakes, a fact that was established decades ago by USGS scientists."

According to a November 18, 2016 Associated Press article that is available on numerous websites, including a webpage on the Tulsa World website, residents of Pawnee, Oklahoma have filed a class-action lawsuit against 27 companies due to damages from earthquakes believed to be caused by wastewater disposal from fracking.

I am surprised that there have not been more lawsuits and more outrage over this practice. While widespread availability of relatively cheap oil and natural gas has many benefits, the risks and damages that occur from producing it also need to be considered.

If it is demonstrated that these oil and natural gas producers are directly responsible (as seems likely) for the large increase in earthquakes and the damages the earthquakes cause, then these companies are presumably liable for reimbursing those impacted by the damages.

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. But it seems to me that if it has been known for decades that injecting fluids into the ground can lead to earthquakes, and it is known that there has been a huge increase in the number of earthquakes in areas where fluids have been injected into the ground in recent years, that it is logical that this fluid injection is the likely cause of these earthquakes.

I am not stating that fracking must stop or even that the disposal of wastewater by injecting it into the ground must cease. But, I strongly support holding these energy companies liable for the damages they are causing. Even if persons feel that the benefits of the oil and gas production via this method justify allowing it to continue, the persons who suffer damages from the earthquakes deserve compensation for their damages as I see it.

If the cost of providing this compensation to victims of earthquakes leads to the oil and gas companies (1) finding more environmentally friendly ways of producing the oil or gas and/or (2) raising oil and gas prices to pay for the cost of paying for the damages and for the lawsuits, (3) and/or turning to alternative energy sources or others doing so, then that seems to be what needs to occur.

Oil and natural gas have provided many benefits over the years as energy sources. But these benefits need to be weighed against the negative impacts of the production, transportation, and consumption of this natural gas and oil.

NOTE: This article was last revised on November 19, 2016.

Neckties: Buying and Wearing Them Is Usually Unnecessary, a Waste of Money, and Potentially Dangerous

It remains common for many persons to wear neckties to church (and to business functions, etc.). Why does a man (or anyone) wear a necktie? Do neckties serve any useful purpose?

A colorful tie can be attractive, maybe even look elegant. However, wearing clothing just for appearance seems a waste, especially in an age when conservation and being environmentally friendly are emphasized. Wearing ties seems pretentious and worldly—not what God or Christ or commonsense would advocate.

Perhaps wearing neckties originated from scarves worn in winter around the face to help protect people from cold and/or windy weather. Nicely tied, stylish scarves worn when weather conditions warranted them may have been the precursor of the necktie.

But the ties commonly worn now, tied the way they are tied, serve no useful purpose that I comprehend. Although I have neither worn nor bought a tie in a few decades, I still own some. The picture below shows most of the ties I still own.  

Although I personally have not worn a tie in decades, the wearing of neckties in public still remains a common practice in the United States and many other countries among persons in leadership positions in business, government, and religion. Certain formal parties and some restaurants also require a tie. In fact, so-called “black tie affairs” may require a black tie or more specifically a black bow tie, a tuxedo, and/or other formal apparel. Indeed, ties are traditional in some circles.

I think it is time to end the tradition of wearing ties.

Neckties cost money to purchase, take time to tie, may feel uncomfortable around one’s neck, and are a potential safety hazard if they flap around loosely and get caught in machinery.

In contrast to ties, much of the clothing we wear serves a useful purpose. Shoes protect our feet. Undergarments, socks, pants, shirts, hats, and gloves provide us warmth, protect us from sunburn, and help guard our skin from injuries that might otherwise result as we contact various objects. But I submit that ties need to be either recycled into something more useful or discarded.

Personally, I may never wear a tie again unless I am in a situation where someone else requests it, such as for a job where wearing one is mandatory. Do you agree with me that wearing a tie is unnecessary, potentially unsafe, and a waste of time and money?

If we love and care for everyone regardless of circumstances, neither we nor they need to display a necktie as a status symbol or for any other reason that I can think of.

In fact, try to avoid focusing on ties others wear. Instead, focus your eyes on their faces, smile at them, and establish eye contact. Our actions, words, and our other apparel can suitably convey information about us to one another.

If you are required to wear a tie at work, please try to get the decision maker(s) for your workplace to read this two page chapter and to change the policy requiring employees to wear ties. I think it would be great for everyone to avoid spending money buying ties and time tying them. Dedicate that money and time toward more productive and more enjoyable living. Will you do it?

NOTE: This piece is adapted/reprinted from a chapter in my book True Christianity: It May Not Be What You Think (second edition, copyright 2015). That chapter was adapted/reprinted from articles I published earlier online.  

Eat a Vegan Diet for Under $5 a Day

Persons can eat a healthy vegan diet for less than $5 a day in most places here in the United States. Often foods that are good for us are cheaper than junk food.

Although eating a vegan diet can be cheaper than eating a diet that contains meat and dairy products, much of the information in this article applies even to persons who eat a diet that contains meat and dairy products.

Most of us can significantly reduce the amount of money we spend on food. Below I list some steps toward cutting food costs.

1. The first step (You may have guessed this one.) is to substantially reduce (or eliminate) eating at restaurants. Eating at restaurants is typically much more expensive than preparing and eating food at home--unless someone else is paying the restaurant bill. In addition, restaurant food often contains additives you don't want, such as extra salt.
   
2.  A second step is to buy dry beans instead of meats and poultry. A wide variety of beans are available in supermarkets, including pinto beans, great northern beans, black beans, kidney beans, cranberry beans, navy beans, and lima beans. Beans lack the fat that is in meats, and beans are typically cheaper than meats. Furthermore, beans are nutritious. For example, pinto beans and whole grain cornbread provide an excellent source of protein and amino acids. You can cook a big batch and freeze or refrigerate leftovers.
3. Third, eat a variety of whole grains instead of refined white flour products. Whole grain cornmeal, whole grain wheat flour, whole grain brown rice, and numerous other grains are available at reasonably cheap prices. My personal favorites are whole grain yellow cornmeal and white whole wheat flour.
4. Fourth, nuts and seeds (as well as legumes) provide nutrition and cholesterol free fat that is "good fat" compared to the saturated fat (with cholesterol) in meats. A serving or two of almonds, walnuts, sunflower seeds, peanuts, etc., can be a tasty part of a well-balanced diet. You can eat most nuts either raw or roasted. Try them both ways to add variety to your diet.
5. Fifth, even fresh fruits and vegetables are not very expensive on a per serving basis, especially if you buy them on sale. Fresh fruits can average less than 40 cents per serving, and vegetables can average less than 20 cents per serving. At these prices, eating three servings of fruit daily and five servings of vegetables daily would cost less than $2.20. The key is to buy things on sale. Supermarkets typically have a few fruits and vegetables on sale each week. You can also buy dried or canned fruit on sale, as well as canned or frozen vegetables on sale, but buy fresh products when reasonably feasible. And if you buy some vegetables at a cheap price (carrots for example), you can afford to pay more for others (asparagus for example).

The photograph below shows some of the foods I currently have in my apartment: a pineapple, green and red grapes, a cantaloupe, a tomato, carrots, potatoes, cinnamon-raisin bagels, white whole wheat flour, everything bagels, yellow whole grain cornmeal, and pinto beans. 
 

I bought the pineapple and cantaloupe on sale at a local supermarket for 50 cents each (even better than the sale price of about $1 each I usually try to buy them for), bought a pound of carrots on sale for $1, a five pound bag of potatoes for $1 on sale, tomatoes for less than $1 a pound on sale, and the other items at their regular prices. The bagels are a processed food made with regular white enriched flour, but still as a snack they are healthier than candy, most cookies, cake, pie, etc.

Below I provide some suggestions about what to prepare for various meals.

Breakfast
Oatmeal, wheat farina, homemade biscuits and gravy, pancakes, cereal (bought on sale) and nondairy milk, etc., are all relatively cheap breakfast foods. Add a piece of fresh fruit or juice. To get a vegan source of Omega-3 fatty acids, you can sprinkle some ground flaxseeds on your breakfast cereal, biscuits, or pancakes after cooking (cooking damages the Omega-3s). Walnuts are another good vegan source of Omega-3s. By the way, microalgae is another vegan source of Omega-3 fatty acids, and microalgae contains DHA and EPA Omega-3 fatty acids, making its fatty acids more similar to those in fish than the ALA in ground flaxseeds. It is probably best for vegans to add microalgae to the diet, too.

Personally, I drink a glass of orange juice enriched with calcium most mornings. I buy 12 ounce cans of frozen concentrate in store brands for about $1.50-$1.75 each, which provides six servings of eight ounces each per can for a cost of less than 25 cents per serving. I often add a banana or some other type of fruit to my breakfast, too.

Lunch at Work and Other Meals Away from Home
If you must eat a meal away from home, such as lunch at work, to save money consider packing your own lunch. For example, you might pack a sandwich or two, a piece of fruit, and a salad. 

Taking to work your own peanut butter and jelly sandwich(es), banana(s), and a fresh salad will almost certainly be cheaper than eating at a restaurant and likely more nutritious, too. You can pack the salad in an airtight plastic container with some ice cubes to keep it cold. If you are concerned someone may tamper with your lunch before you get to eat it, perhaps you can put it in a locker, in a drawer at your desk, in your locked car, or some other place that is safe.

Dinner, Supper, and Other Home-Cooked Meals
Preparing some type of beans and some type of whole grain bread (cornbread, biscuits, garlic bread, etc.) provides a tasty, nutritious main part of the meal. A variety of spices and seasonings can add flavor. Numerous recipes are available online in addition to the basic ones on the bags of beans and grains.

For side dishes, choose from whatever vegetables you bought on sale (asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, celery, collard greens, corn, green beans, lettuce in a variety of types, mustard greens, onions, potatoes, radishes, spinach, turnip greens and turnips, etc.).

Fresh fruit can be dessert. In addition to apples and bananas which are usually reasonably priced, each week some types of fruit are usually on sale (such as apricots, blackberries, blueberries, cantaloupes, grapes, oranges, peaches, pears, pineapples, plums, strawberries, watermelons, etc.).

For dessert, instead of fresh fruit, you can prepare some type of homemade treat. Homemade cakes, candies, cookies, pies, etc., are usually fairly cheap per serving, and if you prepare them with relatively small amounts of fat, salt, and sugar, they can be relatively healthy compared to most store-bought desserts. Numerous vegan dessert recipes are available online that have limited fat, salt, and sugar content, thus making "junk food" a bit healthier eating. For example, some recipes substitute applesauce or another sweetener for sugar, reduce the amount of cooking oil or margarine compared to a typical recipe, omit salt by substituting other seasonings, etc.

To give one specific example, when time permits, I enjoy making homemade cinnamon-oatmeal-raisin cookies, using molasses or applesauce to sweeten them. They are tasty, somewhat nutritious, and relatively low in fat--I use little vegetable oil in them.

Snacks
One of my favorite snacks is bagels. I buy cinnamon-raisin, blueberry, and everything bagels, and eat one or two of those instead of potato chips, candy, or other less healthy foods.

Popcorn that is air popped without adding significant amounts of salt, margarine, cooking oil, etc. is a relatively healthy snack that adds fiber and relatively few calories to one's diet, and it is cheap, too.

Fresh fruits and vegetables can also be tasty and nutritious snacks, with or without a nutritious dip.

Homemade treats like banana nut bread, oatmeal cookies, and peanut butter cookies are tasty, too.

Closing Thoughts
Since no one eats perfectly, adding a daily multivitamin to one's diet is a good way to add nutrients. I confess that the one I take is probably not a vegan multivitamin, but I hope to find a vegan multivitamin that I like. If a bottle of multivitamins costs $15 per 100 vitamins, that is only 15 cents a day added to the cost of one's daily diet. Vitamin B12 is one of the nutrients that vegans often have difficulty getting into their diet. In addition to taking a daily multivitamin that contains vitamin B12, I use soymilk enriched with B12, as well as sometimes eating cereal enriched with B12.

I am neither a dietician nor a medical professional, so I cannot give dietary or medical advice, but I am confident that persons who follow the guidelines I provided in this article will eat a more healthy diet than most persons and more cheaply than most persons eat here in the United States.

Do adapt my suggestions for your own specific calorie and nutrition needs. And please seek out other sources for more information about eating a healthy diet at a relatively low cost.

Who knows? You may find that you enjoy eating a cheaper and healthier diet more than you enjoy your current diet--and you may feel better as a result, too.

NOTE: The material in this article is adapted and/or reprinted from material I wrote in Chapter 31 of my book True Christianity: It May Not Be What You Think, second edition, copyright 2015, as well as from material in an article I posted on Newsvine on April 20, 2012.          

Flat Tax: An Advantage and a Disadvantage

Many persons support replacing the current federal income tax, with its numerous forms, etc., with a flat tax. As I see it, a flat tax has one big advantage and one big disadvantage compared to our current federal income tax.

The Big Advantage
A huge advantage of a federal flat tax is its simplicity. If everyone paid the same percentage of our income in taxes, it would eliminate the need for millions of people to fill out many complex tax forms, as well as eliminate the need for a lot of record keeping for various tax deductions. It also could eliminate most of the pages of federal tax code--thousands of pages that few ever read entirely and probably no one fully understands!

With a flat tax, it would not be necessary any more for a typical person to either pay another person to fill out a federal income tax form or to devote hours to doing it himself or herself. I hold an MBA, but I still find filling out my annual tax return a time consuming task that is unnecessarily complex under the current system.

Under a federal flat tax, for wage earners whose only income is from paychecks that their employers withhold taxes from, filing a federal income tax return might be unnecessary. The employer would simply withhold the appropriate percentage of income from one's paycheck and the employee's taxes would be paid by the employer.

For example, here in Lexington, Kentucky (where I live), we have a city payroll tax. Those of us working for an employer get a certain percentage of our income (2.25% currently) taken out of our paychecks each pay period. Employers pay this amount to the city government, and employees do not need to file a tax return at all for this. Those of us who are self-employed do need to file a short form and pay the 2.25% if our net income level is large enough. But that form takes little time to fill out--the hardest part is filling out the federal tax forms necessary to get information for it under the current system. And persons running businesses will need to keep records of income and expenses under any tax system.

Above is a picture of form 1040, its 104 page instruction booklet, and some of the schedules that many persons needed to fill out their 2014 federal income taxes. Though many persons could fill out a shorter form with fewer instructions, others needed additional schedules and instructions. I am not convinced that the 2015 tax forms were easier or that the 2016 ones will be.

The Big Disadvantage
A huge disadvantage of a flat tax for most people is that under a flat tax most people will pay more federal income tax than they do now. You may ask why?

Under the current system, due to the "standard deduction," the "earned income credit," and numerous other deductions, the majority of citizens pay no federal income tax at all. In fact, many of us workers currently get a "tax refund" back from the federal government that is larger than the amount withheld from our paychecks. Eliminating all the deductions (which would happen with a flat tax) would raise taxes for the majority of taxpayers.

The relatively few persons who would pay less under a flat tax are primarily those with high net incomes who are currently in a high tax bracket. Therefore, those earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (or more) would pay far lower income taxes than they do currently under a flat tax, assuming that they don't have some type of deductions or other "loopholes" to reduce their taxes--which many do.

A Fair Compromise?
Perhaps the best approach would be neither the current system nor a flat tax. Instead, create a progressive tax with no deductions or only a few deductions. This would be similar to the current progressive federal income tax, but much simpler due to eliminating most deductions.

For example, perhaps persons would pay 0% in taxes on their first $5,000 in earnings (or some very small percentage just so they were contributing something), then pay a gradually escalating percentage as income increases. Persons earning over $1,000,000 a year might pay a marginal tax rate of 50% on income over $1,000,000. You may think 50% is exorbitant, but I am old enough (58 years old) to remember when the top marginal rate on the federal income tax was 70% (in the 1970s, and no I wasn't in that bracket). I think 50% is a nice medium between what I consider the too high rate some decades ago and the too low rate now.

Personally, I think it is a shame that so many persons devote so many hours each year to filling out tax forms and accompanying papers, reading the instructions for them, and assembling the records for the process. I strongly support simplifying the current federal income tax system.

But, I dislike the idea of a totally flat tax. Do we want a person making only $5,000 a year to pay the same percentage of their income in federal income taxes as a millionaire? I think some type of compromise is right. What do you think?

NOTE: This article is adapted from one I published January 1, 2012 on Newsvine titled "Flat Tax -- Good Idea or Bad Idea? POLL"

Creating A New Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States can be a good thing when spoken the right way by the right person at the right time. If you have never heard Red Skelton's reading of the Pledge of Allegiance and his explanation of its meaning as it was taught to him, I urge you to do a Google search to find it and listen. I think you will find it a wonderful experience.

But, I think the pledge also does some harm at times, and it would be marvelous to replace it with a better pledge that focuses on something other than a piece of cloth (I hope you forgive me for calling the United States flag a piece of cloth, because I do respect that cloth that symbolizes the United States.).

Some persons are offended by the current pledge, because of the reference to "under God." Some oppose pledging allegiance to a flag, which is a piece of cloth, rather than to something more important. And some may oppose the concept of a pledge completely.

Tradition 
I know the current pledge has a lot of tradition.  Many oppose changing it in any way. It has probably been happily and lovingly recited by millions of people multiple times.

As a child, I often enjoyed patriotically reciting the pledge. I considered it almost sacrilegious when persons desecrated the flag in some way. Tears would come to my eyes when I heard Johnny Cash singing his popular song "Ragged Old Flag" on the radio.

And I will repeat my request in the first paragraph of this piece for persons who haven't done so to listen to Red Skelton's rendition of the pledge. I think you will find it a moving experience.

But there is another side to the story. The pledge can be used to promote chauvinistic nationalism (as I feel Hitler did with the Nazi flag), at the expense of loving patriotism that cares for all people of all countries while being devoted to one's own.      

The current pledge seems to imply that the United States is always right and always to be supported. Blind obedience is not true patriotism. In contrast, true patriotism seeks to follow righteousness and truth to make oneself, one's neighborhood, one's country, and the world a better place. As United States Senator Carl Schurz stated long before I was born in his own definition of patriotism: "My country right or wrong. When right, to keep right; when wrong, to put right."

The picture above of a United States flag flying near the courthouses in Lexington, Kentucky was taken by me (James E. Gibson) on October 23, 2016. A United States flag flies prominently near many government buildings in this country, as well as many other places.

Under God in the Pledge
The words "under God" in the pledge may correctly imply that we are only to obey the country when it is obedient to God, but some may interpret the terms "under God" to imply that the United States is always to be obeyed because it is always obedient to God.

While I like having a reference to God in the pledge, I think a reference to obedience to the highest righteous authority (which I consider to be God) is adequate. This preserves the concept of God while better exemplifying the freedom of religion that many of our Founding Fathers supported. Remember that persons like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin wanted freedom of religion for Muslims and those of other faiths than Christianity, probably even atheists and agnostics. And "under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

My Pledge of Allegiance
Some may feel that a pledge is not needed at all, but I feel that righteous values need to be instilled in some way. And I feel that a pledge to righteous living is one way to help instill those values.
   
Over five years ago, I wrote what I consider an improved Pledge of Allegiance, which I published on Newsvine.com on May 31, 2011 as part of an article titled "A New Pledge of Allegiance: Poll" (which this Google Blogger article I am posting today is adapted from). I reprint that pledge here: "I pledge allegiance to seeking to help make the United States a better country by seeking to be obedient to the highest righteous authority and to always be truthful in a loving way, seeking appropriate liberty and justice for all."

I now seek to revise my own pledge to make it better, by having it state: "I pledge allegiance to seek to always do right, to seek to always be obedient to the highest righteous authority, to seek to always be truthful in a loving way, to seek appropriate liberty and justice for all, and to help make myself, my family, my friends, my neighborhood, my country, and my world better by improving my own behavior."

My revised pledge is not perfect, and I welcome suggestions on how to improve it. But I feel that mine is superior to the current one. I give the highest righteous authority, God's Holy Spirit, credit for any good in my pledge; I take responsibility for any failings in it, and I hope no one is offended. Even if you disagree with me, I hope you will respect my right to my view, as I respect your right to yours.

NOTE: This article was last modified on October 23, 2016 when I added the photo of a flag.

Charlotte Police Shooting: At Least Two Accounts--Respond Responsibly

Being truthful always in a loving way (to paraphrase part of Ephesians 4:15) is one of the most important things we can do, as I see it. In my opinion, this is true always.

At least two very different accounts exist of a shooting that occurred in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier this week.

One version states that a white police officer shot an unarmed and disabled African-American man holding a book who was waiting to pick up a child from school.

Another version states that an African-American officer shot an armed man who refused to drop his weapon.

I would love to know the truth and hope the true story will be discovered and disclosed. I hope the police will release video of the incident soon.

But regardless of which story is true (and both may be at least a bit true for all I know), it is horrible that looting, shooting, etc., occurred afterward. That is not the way to respond. Stealing and damaging the property of innocent persons and shooting or otherwise injuring others is not the right way to respond. This seems like madness.

Looting and violence against innocent persons seems to often occur in response to perceived injustices. Pent-up emotions seem to released inappropriately. The best way to prevent this might be to raise up children properly, treat everyone fairly, and to address minor problems before they become major ones. Unfortunately, in our imperfect world that doesn't happen. But I am confident we can do better than we do now.

I strongly support the right of persons to protest peacefully and responsibly. And I'm sorry that the acts of some in Charlotte may reflect poorly on all those who protested peacefully and responsibly.

If the police account of events in Charlotte is wrong, corrective action needs to be taken. And even if it wasn't, corrective action needs to be taken in cases where police abuses have occurred. 

Indeed, we need to allow and encourage persons to report injustices and to take actions to investigate and correct them when they are reported. Please, let's all seek to do so, quickly, fairly, and responsibly.

What Can Help Food Stamp and Medicaid Recipients Live Healthier Lifestyles?

Studies indicate that recipients of food stamps, Medicaid, and other federal government benefits are more likely than the general public to smoke cigarettes, consume more junk food than the general public, and engage in some other activities that are risky to their health more frequently than does the general public.

What can be done to help welfare recipients make better choices and live happier, healthier, more productive lives? A Malbeck Data Institute study published on NationalReport.net in 2014 stated that 89% of those receiving food stamps purchased primarily junk food. A 2015 Centers for Disease Control press release that used "data from the 2014 National Health Survey" found that 29.1% of Medicaid recipients were smokers vs. 16.8% of adults in general.

For one thing, it would be great if food stamp recipients enjoyed easy access to a grocery or supermarket that sells fresh produce and other relatively healthy food options at reasonable prices and shopped there regularly. Too many of them live a significant distance from a supermarket, lack automobiles, and/or have small children that complicate shopping/traveling to a store.

Some persons advocate not allowing the purchase of things like carbonated soft drinks or candy with food stamps. But for now at least the federal government does allow this, although to my surprise vitamins are not allowed to be purchased using food stamps. More details about the food stamp program (officially called "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" or by the acronym SNAP for short) are on the SNAP Frequently Asked Questions webpage.

Many taxpayers (who are the ones paying for the SNAP program) are upset that food stamp recipients buy so much junk food. Also, many persons feel that if persons can afford to visit tanning salons, get tattoos, smoke cigarettes, etc., (as some welfare recipients apparently do) that they can afford food and maybe even medical care, and should not be subsidized by the government.

Some states have passes restrictions limiting how welfare benefits (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) can be spent, to help prevent welfare money from being spent on tattoos, piercings, tanning salon visits, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, etc. Some states are also adding specific work requirements for able-bodied welfare recipients. An April 16, 2015 NBCNews article reports on a Kansas law that the state's goverrnor had recently signed that may be the most restrictive.

Some of these requirements seem geared toward helping both welfare recipients and the taxpayers who support them. But persons who take this to extreme by seeking to eliminate welfare and food stamps or to cut them off for masses of people without providing them alternatives may not be following what I consider the Christian attitude of "There but for the grace of God go I." Jesus advocated caring for the poor and needy.

But the point that these persons would do well to take better care of their health is a valid one. It is perhaps even more important that welfare recipients with children teach their children how to take care of their health, so that the children do not become abuses of drugs, or overindulge in junk food.

Also, it is wonderful to provide a reasonable amount of professional medical care for the needy. But a willingness to take care of one's health is important. If a Medicaid recipient goes to the doctor for breathing problems and high blood pressure, but refuses to quit smoking or to exercise or to eat a diet that can help lower their blood pressure, the doctor's visit may not be very productive. Often medical professionals treat symptoms only, not the underlying problems.

What can we do to encourage persons to live a healthier lifestyle? These food stamp and Medicaid recipients often have children dependent upon them, and in many cases even have parents that they are caregivers for. I think it would be unfair to the recipients and to those dependent on them to cut off their benefits. But it would be great if we could find a good way to reduce unnecessary expenditures on food stamps and Medicaid, as well as improve to the health of these recipients. That seems like a win-win situation.

What can we do to help unemployed able-bodied welfare recipients who are looking for jobs to find jobs? And what can we do to convince them to live healthier lifestyles?

Music Can Arouse Various Emotions: Is an International Language in a Sense

Music can arouse a variety of emotions. It can have powerful effects on humans. Music can help make someone joyous, sad, angry, etc.

Music Is an International Language in a Sense
"Music is the universal language of mankind" stated Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in 1835. I prefer to state that music is a form of international language, international in the sense that musical tunes can be conveyed to and recognized by persons of various languages. But music is not a universal language, because persons differ in the extent to which they understand and benefit from music, as well as in their tastes in it. Some even dislike most if not all music.

My Perspective
For me, music is a sideline, and not a centerpiece. I usually just listen to music in the background while I am doing something else, such as washing dishes. And even when doing things like washing dishes, I often do  other things than listen to music, including listening to news or a sermon message on the radio, or just quietly meditating.

Me and Musical Instruments
I appreciate the talents of those who read music and/or play various instruments well. But I can not read music. Nor can I play an instrument. I do still have a cheap flute that I may have owned for decades, pictured below in two photos.

But I can't play a tune on it.

My Music Tastes
The time I love music most is during the Christmas season. I enjoy listening to Christmas music, both contemporary songs and traditional Christian hymns. It gets me even more in a positive frame of mind, instilling the Christmas Spirit I guess one could say. The fact that many stores play Christmas music during the season indicates that it is effective or perceived as being effective for the stores. [Disclosure: My current second job is working as a part-time store clerk.]  

I also enjoy listening to positive uplifting contemporary Christian songs by artists like Michael W. Smith, as well as a few classic hymns like "How Great Thou Art" and "Amazing Grace." Some soft rock songs appeal to me, too, including several by Simon & Garfunkel and by the Beatles from the 1960s to 1970. As a kid I also liked the positive, upbeat Fifth Dimension song "Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In." Perhaps one reason I loved that song is the fact that I am an Aquarian; but, I also liked its uplifting message.

I generally dislike the country songs that tell a sad story, and the Christmas song "Blue Christmas." I think listening to sad songs like those contributes toward making one sad. I think there is a correlation between persons who enjoy listening to that type of music and persons who suffer from depression. I admit that this is based on my observations of some persons rather than a scientific study. However, in a later section of this article I briefly refer to a study that indicated a correlation between depression and listening to music.

What I call "message" songs also impact people, in my opinion. These songs promote some type of message, whether it be "peace," "love," "patriotism," or something else.

I like some message songs like "One Tin Soldier" by Coven and "Indian Reservation" by Paul Revere and the Raiders. I think some songs can inspire one to take positive actions, and some can make one angry. And playing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A." is a tradition at some Fourth of July festivals; it seems to help instill pride in the United States. I enjoy hearing it.

Patriotism and "The Star-Spangled Banner"
And the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" before sporting events in the United States is one way to help instill national unity and patriotism, as well as respect for the United States flag that is displayed at such occasions. But it is important not to confuse patriotism with nationalism. True patriotism requires putting obedience to the highest righteous authority (which I call God) above nationalism. As United States Senator Carl Schurz defined patriotism long before I was born: "My country right or wrong. When right to keep right; when wrong, to put right." I respect those who choose not to stand for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner." 

Music and Depression
Many talk about the therapeutic effect of music, but I think often those who are most heavily involved in listening to music seem to be more depressed than the average person. A journal article published in 2011 based on data from an earlier study of teens indicated a correlation (not necessarily causation) between depression and listening to music more than the average person, as reported by various news pieces, including a Time.com article.

Those of us who are actively doing constructive things are perhaps happier than those passively retreating into listening to music or even playing music. Even positive, upbeat music I think needs to be kept in the proper perspective, being a sideline rather than a centerpiece of one's life.

Music in Perspective
Often the real world sounds of birds singing, cats purring, dogs barking happily, ocean waves, or water running over a waterfall can be more peaceful and relaxing than the artificial man-made musical sounds, as I see it. Man-made music needs to be kept in proper perspective.

I think persons walking around with headphones on listening to music instead of conversing with passersby or listening to natural sounds miss out on a lot, as well as possibly endangering lives if they don't hear cars and other things around them due to the headphones.

Yes, music can have a variety of effects on people. Let's enjoy its benefits, but let's also keep it in perspective.

NOTE:
This article was last revised February 16, 2023.

2016 Presidential Race: Good? and Bad? News for Voters Disliking Clinton and Trump

For U.S. voters who don't want to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I have both good and bad news.


The Bad? News
The bad news first: I am not going to run for President myself in 2016. (Yes, I know some may consider that good news and may consider it bad news that I am considering the possibility of running in 2020.) But I honestly think I might be better qualified than Clinton or Trump in several ways, and I hope to improve my qualifications in the next few years.

The Good? News
Personally, I consider it good news that there are numerous alternative candidates running for President of the United States in 2016. Some are running as the official candidates of "minor" parties. Others are running as independent candidates.

You may believe that an independent candidate or a candidate of a minor party has virtually no chance of winning. And that may be true. But--please read on.

The majority of persons eligible to register to vote and to cast votes in the election, will probably not vote at all. I urge these persons to consider voting for another candidate that is on their state's ballot or to consider casting a write-in vote for a candidate not on the ballot. A wide variety of candidates with a big variety of different views are available to choose from. Instead of not voting at all, try to vote for a candidate you feel is better qualified than the two major party candidates.

If all (or a huge percentage) of the voters who would otherwise not vote decide to vote and vote for the same other candidate instead of Clinton or Trump, that candidate could win. Indeed, if all these persons voted for the same candidate, that candidate would win in a landslide.

According to a list on Politics1.com a few hundred different candidates are already running for President this year. More may still decide to run as election day gets closer. According to a Federal Election Commission webpage, as of August 17, 2016 (today), 1,845 candidates had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission to run for President. This is a much longer list than the one on Politics1. These two lists indicate there are a lot of alternatives to choose from.

Maybe it would be nice to take time to read a bit more about some, many, or all of the candidates. Who knows? Some little known independent candidate among the few hundred of them running would be your personal favorite. Or maybe you would prefer the nominee of the Prohibition Party, Green Party, Constitution Party of the U.S., Libertarian  Party, Reform Party USA, Socialist Party USA, or one of the other parties offering candidates to choose from.

Perhaps most important, I pray for the best candidate to win, whomever it may be. And I hope and pray that we voters (and even those who don't vote) will seek to hold the winning candidate accountable (in the right way) for any wrongdoing they do after elected.

Laws Vs. Common Sense

Lots of things are so obviously wrong that it should not be necessary to pass a law against them. Furthermore, laws are not a substitute for common sense.

And some of the existing laws on the books likely contradict one another, so it would be impossible to obey them all. In fact, if a resident of the United States seeks to read all the federal, state, county, and city laws of the place where he or she resides, even if one reads for twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for one's entire lifetime, one wouldn't finish in a normal lifespan.

Therefore, none of us have even read all the laws. If we haven't read all the laws and don't know them, how can we obey them? The key to maintaining a civilized society is not in passing laws and obeying them, it is in learning common sense and applying it.

Two Examples

As one example, no law exists against eating 100 chocolate chip cookies at one time, but few people would try to do it, due to the known harmful effects from the calories, saturated fat, sugar, etc. It's common sense. And, I confess that although I've never eaten 100 chocolate chip cookies at once, I have eaten far too many at one time before. I learned from my mistake (at least I hope so).

Quite frankly, it would probably be better if no one ever ate a chocolate chip cookie. Eat fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains and grains, beans, nuts, legumes, etc., instead. Of course I can rationalize that chocolate chip cookies do contain flour, a grain.

Furthermore, eating a few of those cookies is a minor mistake (sin if you prefer). I may be better off if I never eat another chocolate chip cookie. But if I do (and I almost certainly will), I hope no one ever seeks to put me in jail or fine me for eating one (or several).

As a second example, no law exists in the United States now to prohibit abortions in the early stage of a pregnancy. But, I think even the most strongly pro-choice woman in the country would prefer to avoid the pain, expense, and health risks of an abortion if reasonably possible. It's common sense.

Personally, I am basically pro-life, but even pro-choice persons prefer preventing an unwanted pregnancy (by practicing sexual abstinence and/or using birth control) to having an abortion. Let's seek to prevent those unwanted pregnancies, rather than just preventing the abortions that are a symptom of underlying problems such as unwanted pregnancies and/or selfish sexual lust. I don't want to put persons in jail or fine them for an unintended pregnancy or for having an abortion. But common sense says to avoid undesired pregnancies and abortions whenever reasonably possible.

Laws and Common Sense

Below is a photo taken in June 2017 of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC. The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. I hope its nine justices use common sense in determining how to decide the cases that come before them. Perhaps more important is how we individuals use common sense in our daily lives in numerous actions that never get to the Supreme Court.

Laws help us do correctly. Fortunately, we have laws against speeding, driving drunk, stealing, committing murder, bearing false testimony, etc. I'm glad. But enforcing all those laws isn't easy. It is far better if persons learn from common sense that society functions better when we avoid disobeying these laws, and we voluntarily obey such laws. Also, we can all work together to teach (or remind) others who do wrong (in a loving way) the right course of action to take, rather than depending on a few law enforcement officials to do so.

None of us perfectly develop our common sense, and thus we never have perfect obedience to what I call "God's law," doing the correct thing. But the closer we come to doing so, the better off we and society will be. We may have a lot of freedom, but we need to use our common sense to exercise our freedom wisely.

NOTE: This article was last modified on July 28th, 2021.

New York World Trade Center: A Personal Perspective

I abhor the horrible loss of innocent lives on September 11, 2001 when the New York World Trade Center was destroyed in a terrorist attack. But, at least in a small way, I partially understand why some persons hated the huge structure, even if I can't understand why they destroyed it. Please read on.

The New York World Trade Center was the largest office building in the world at the time it was destroyed. I visited New York City a few years before the World Trade Center's demise. Though I never went up to the top, I did walk through part of what I guess was the first floor of at least one of the twin towers.

The building itself seemed to possibly be constructed and used for the wrong reasons in the wrong way. Though I enjoyed my visit to New York City very much, the least favorite part of the visit was possibly the time I spent in that World Trade Center.

On the day that I was in the building, at the time I was there, a huge crowd of people (including me) was trying to go through the building on to our destinations beyond it after getting off the subway, while another crowd of people was waiting at the elevators to go up in the building. A bottleneck in the World Trade Center had us waiting for what seemed like several minutes in a crowd of people that barely moved for minutes.

The way the building was designed, there was only a relatively small area for persons to wait for the elevators, or for persons to walk through the first floor to other places. I think the architects, engineers, or whoever designed it would have done better to have put in a larger open plaza so that persons didn't crowd up waiting for the elevators or trying to walk through the first floor to other destinations.

Listening to and Talking With People in a Crowd at the World Trade Center

One person who was waiting in the crowd with me that day said that another person had told her that some individuals had considered renovating the building to make pedestrian traffic flow more efficiently, but that apparently the way the building was designed, the support beams, etc. didn't allow alterations that would make a large open area on the first floor to make it easier for travelers to walk quickly through to other destinations and/or to have a large area to wait for an elevator.

One person waiting in the crowd said that even if the building wasn't destroyed by terrorism, someday it would be torn down due to its poor design. The huge traffic jams on the first floor and the design that apparently made modifying it extremely difficult and expensive seemed to rule out other alternatives. Indeed, extensive renovations often are more expensive than tearing a building down and building a new one.

By the way, some of those waiting seemed very nervous. One person stated that she hated walking through it, not just because it took so long due to the crowds of people crammed together, but also because there were rumors that it was going to be attacked again. (The building had already been bombed once, on February 26, 1993). I don't know where the rumors came from, and she apparently didn't either. But obviously hatred continued.

As we waited for the crowd to move, those of us waiting had plenty of time to talk. I did more listening than talking. But, I asked one woman who said she had heard that some people were going to try to destroy it again, why persons wanted to destroy it. She said look around. I did. And I saw businesses that reminded me of the story in the New Testament about the money changers and salespersons that Jesus drove out of the temple.  If I remember correctly, I saw businesses selling lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, junk food, etc. There may have been businesses selling more useful, quality products, but my eyes were focused on the ones selling harmful products, and those products did seem to dominate.

Concluding Thoughts

Obviously, since the New York World Trade Center was the largest office building in the world, it housed a lot of offices of various types. At the time it was built, it was the tallest building in the world. And its "twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry," according to a piece on Skyscraper.org. Persons of various nationalities, cultures, religions, etc., worked in the towers and visited them. The two 110-story towers were 1,368 and 1,362 feet high according to various websites. At least one child care center was even in the building, according to news reports. But in the spot where I was on the first floor, retail businesses selling harmful products seemed to dominate.

Though I hate the tragic loss of lives, in my humble opinion, New York City is better off without its World Trade Center. In fact, New York City may have been a better city long ago when the large lighthouse, Liberty Enlightening the World (better known as the Statue of Liberty), was the tallest structure in the city.

Probably the most enjoyable part of my visit to New York City was seeing that statue as I rode out toward Liberty Island and Ellis Island on a ferry boat. I could visualize in my mind immigrants from around the world sailing into the harbor, seeing that lighthouse lighting the way to a new life.

France may have donated that lighthouse to the United States at the right time for the right reason. In contrast, I think the New York World Trade Center may have been built the wrong way, by the wrong people, for the wrong reason, at the wrong time. I may be wrong, but I think the city is better off without it.

However, please don't misunderstand me. I am basically a pacifist. And I certainly don't condone or understand the madness that led extremists to crash jets into the towers as suicide bombers. But I do believe that when we do bad things, including building a huge building whose most visible elements include an overcrowded lobby with pedestrian traffic jams and money-hungry vendors selling harmful products, bad things happen.

I also believe that when we do good things, we make good things happen. Let's seek to love even our enemies as Jesus taught. By doing so, I think we can turn our enemies (if we have any) into our friends.

Taking Things Slower Has Benefits

Often it seems that life is fast-paced. Traveling quickly by jet aircraft and preparing food in a microwave oven are two examples of things getting done much quicker, at a faster pace, than was true long ago. But, I think taking things slower has benefits in at least some ways.

Travel
Recently I traveled from Lexington, Kentucky to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and back on a Greyhound bus. Most persons probably would have flown. But the prices and limited travel times (at least for budget airlines) led me to go via the bus.

I found the bus trip relaxing in some ways. I met many nice, interesting persons, enjoyed seeing the scenery, took time to read, did some editing work to revise a book I'd published shortly before the trip, etc. I doubt that I would have enjoyed a flight as much. I even slept a significant amount on the approximately 20 hours each way trip, though not as much as I'd planned.

I honesty think that, assuming I didn't get seasick, I might even enjoy devoting a few days to traveling on a ship across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. Centuries ago, before steamships, when folks like Benjamin Franklin were on ships with sails, it might have taken a month or longer to sail across the ocean. I can visualize persons reading, meeting new friends, writing articles or books, and engaging in deep thoughts to gain new insights, as well as enjoying some nice relaxation, among many other activities.

Yes, I am confident there can be big advantages sometimes to taking travel a bit slower. I know I can see and enjoy my neighborhood, city, etc., more when I am walking or bicycling than when I am traveling in a car or on a bus.

Food Preparation
I love my microwave oven, which can prepare a lot of tasty food quickly. It likely even does some foods better than "conventional" cooking. I would not want to go back to the days when someone may have devoted a big part of a day to preparing food for a family, doing things like baking bread from scratch. But I am confident that old-fashioned cooking is better in many ways.

Forgive me for being nostalgic, but I have fond memories of enjoying a potato baked by my great grandmother in the coals of a fireplace. I remember the various homemade "delicacies" that my mom and grandmother prepared from scratch. And I myself still frequently soak pinto beans overnight; then, I devote a couple of hours to cooking them on the stove, while I busy myself doing reading, writing, browsing the Internet, sorting papers, etc., as they cook.

Multitasking
Many persons today seem to carry a cell phone with them almost everywhere and seem the majority of the time to be conversing with someone on it or playing games on it, etc. At the same time, they may be shopping, driving, baby-sitting children, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the huge amount of multitasking that takes place in modern society is a contributing factor toward many headaches, ulcers, and other illnesses.

Personally, I try to take things slower. I rarely carry my cellphone with me, and I seldom use it when I do. I try to do one thing at a time and to focus on it, rather than multitasking, with some exceptions such as cooking beans as I mentioned earlier, which aren't really a distraction as long as I set a timer for them (and set the timer near the door, so I can put them out of mind, relatively confident I won't go out and forget them).

Of course, I am single and not a parent. It may be impossible to be a parent and not multitask. Even I do a significant amount of multitasking. But I think that if most of us reduce the quantity of our multitasking, when reasonably feasible, our lives would improve.

Concluding Thoughts
Persons such as the Mennonites and Amish who have strong morals, good work ethics, and avoid using many modern inventions may have the right idea in some ways. A lot of people seem to go deeply into debt, then get stressed out working two or three jobs to pay for labor-saving devices or a second home or a boat.

And if we go slower, taking more time to talk to others and to listen to them, maybe we would do a better job of getting along with others. Personally, I am confident that we could resolve all (or at least most) conflicts much more fairly and peacefully if we took time to communicate openly and honestly and to sincerely listen to the points of view of others, to try to understand their side(s) of the issue(s), and to seek the right solution.

Maybe we all could sincerely be conscientious objectors. On the Philadelphia trip I mentioned earlier, a Mennonite ministering in Philadelphia on a Saturday handed me a CD (I was a bit surprised he had a CD.) with a sermon message titled "A True Conscientious Objector Today," apparently delivered by a person named Melvin Burkholder. I am basically a pacifist myself and enjoyed listening to it. Maybe we all could be conscientious objectors if through the grace of God we all sincerely followed the Holy Spirit's leading in treating all persons fairly. 

I don't claim to always take things slower, but I do only rent a car a few times a year, taking time to walk, bicycle, and ride the bus much more frequently. And I live in a studio efficiency apartment that helps me limit how much stuff I acquire (though I found that one can fit several bookcases full of books even in a studio efficiency).

Furthermore, I am happy remaining single, which may be a simpler life than marriage. I do remain open to the possibility of.marriage if I meet the right person at the right time in the right way and develop a relationship slowly, but I think I may be called to be single and celibate.

I respect the right of persons to choose a fast-paced life, and at times I do, too. But in general, I think most of us, here in the United States anyway, can benefit by slowing down our pace of life, acquiring fewer possessions, and enjoying the simple pleasures of life more.