Happy Birthday to Adam Roland Hansen of Toledo, Ohio

Here it is, July 31, 2016.
That means today is the forty-third (43rd) anniversary of the birth of my son, Adam Roland Hansen.

I want to give a shout out, and I invite you to join me.
Here goes:

Happy Birthday, Adam.

To quote my own words from my Roland's Ramblings blog entry of one year ago today:

"I have said it and written it before, as I do again now. and as I do each and everyday, I think of how much I love my son, Adam Roland Hansen, and of how proud I am of Adam who constantly, consistently, and continuously strives to be the grandest version of the greatest vision of his highest self."

You can look in at Adam over at ADAMHANSEN.NET, as well as over on Twitter and at Google+. You can also check out Adam Hasen on LinkedIn.

Once again, I say,
Happy Birthday, Adam.

What if there were a 3-way contest for President: A Non-Conversation.

A serious political discussion I attempted to initiate on March 27, 2016 (4 months ago) on SwampBubbles never really resulted in good healthy consideration and dialogue on the central topic that I put forth. Indeed, the message thread itself soured and went south, In other words, to use the good ol' American idiomatic phrase -- It bombed.

Take a look and hopefully you will be able to understand my frustration. Just go on over by opening the following embedded link to view and read the SwampBubbles message thread, WHAT IF THERE WERE A 3-WAY CONTEST FOR PRESIDENT?


Epilogue (an "as an aside" commentary on my part)

Incidentally, in that SwampBubbles message thread, the person who wrote "Roland -- Looked carefully for the 'name-calling' you accused me of doing to you. Can't find any." totally misconstrued the comment I made to him when I stated, "You have exhibited the very same type of behavior including your constant use of name-calling that caused me to stop contributing on SwampBubbles in the past."

I was referencing that individual's history on the entire SwampBubbles website of name-calling by giving people demeaning nick-names (e.g, Mr. Empty Glass. Chicken Little, Lyin' Don, the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like) which is not unlike the style of speech used by Donald Trump. And, by the way, this was not the first, nor even the second time, that this person has misconstrued my comments.

I am not so sure that the incorrect interpretation of my comments (or the incorrect interpretation of comments made by others, for that matter) on that person's part was, or is, just a misunderstanding. I cannot help but wonder if it is actually an intentional, conscious "misinterpetation." In fact, I have seen many occasions in which that person has engaged in thread hijacking.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the person to whom I refer just doesn't start a blog of his own where he could put forth all his own ideas, thoughts, opinions, facts, or 'whatever' as much as he would want, rather than engage in arguments.

On the other hand, I guess I do understand -- after all, in the SwampBubbles message thread to which I have linked in this Roland Hansen Commentary, that person did state about himself,  "I do like to argue." 
[Note his use of the word 'argue' as opposed to the word 'discuss' or the word 'debate.' NOW, THAT IS SAD!]

3 Lies About Welfare

Each and every person is entitled to his or her own opinion. But, facts are facts and lies are lies. When someone wishes to express his or her opinion, then that person should not attempt to jusify that opinion with mistruths. 

As a retired career professional from the fields of public welfare and higher education, I am especially dismayed by the incorrect statements about welfare, aka public assistance. The meme I share points out only three of the common misconceptions (vis-a-vis the facts) that many people have about welfare in the United States of America.

The Hypocrisy of Internet Social Network. Facebook, et. al.

Same ol' story from me, different day, different title.
I have often written about social media diminishing real world interpersonal relationships. This blog entry is no exception.

I present you with the latest example from my Facebook page, on which I wrote the opening statement:

In response to the question posed in the status update field of my Facebook page, "What is on your mind?":
If I have so many friends on Facebook, why do I feel so all alone?

To this opening statement, a person with whom I once had almost daily contact for many years because we both had worked for the same employer responded:

Facebook is not the same as having an interpersonal friendship with someone. Humans needs that face to face contact. To me someone who makes a post on their page, is no different than someone walking by on the street just saying hi, how ya doing. We need that one on one conversation time, where people sit and talk face to face to each other.

This person apparently did not grasp the full intended meanng of my statement, but, none-the-less actually made my point in a roundabout offhanded way. You see, not only do I know the person from our previous work life, but the person also has attended luncheon meetings of our mutual workpace retirees (a somewhat small group of actuall attendees) as have I - - - and the person does not acknowledge my presence at those luncheons. Additionally, there were other people from my Facebook "friends" list who agreed with the respondent's comment.

You may be wondering how did that comment with its supporters make my point.
I will tell you.
The number of my Facebook "friends" list totals 698. The vast majority of that number is composed of people with whom I have had many years of some form of interpersonal relatonship, i.e. employment associates, school classmates, or fellow members of a wide variety of (political, labor, professional, social, fraternal, charitable, civic, and community) organizations, as well as extended family. In other words, my Facebook "friends" purport to be my friends in the real world outside of Facebook. And of those 698, I have more fingers on one hand than the number who have any amount of personal face-to-face contact with me.

Assault Rifles. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Atomic Bombs.

It seems to me that anyone who subscribes to the Constitutionally based belief that individuals have the right to own assault rifles would also subscribe to the Constitutionally based belief that individuals have the right to own atomic bombs.

Follow my reasoning on that statement.

Using deductive reasoning in the meaning and application of the Second Amendment, an individual has the right to own an atomic bomb.

Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion.

The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.

Oxford dictionaries definition of arms: Weapons and ammunition; armaments.

Oxford dictionaries definition of armaments: Military weapons and equipment: 'chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments'

Assault rifles would be included in the definition of arms. Atomic bombs would be included in the definition of arms.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.

Accordingly then: Assault rifles are arms. Atomic bombs are arms. The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If individuals have the right to own assault rifles under the Second Amendment, then indiviuals also have the right to own atomic bombs under the Second Amendment.

For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, 1) the right for an individual to bear arms, 2) assault rifles are arms, and 3) atomic bombs are arms, are true. Therefore, the conclusion that individuals have the right to own atomic bombs is logical and true.

To those persons who support individual ownership of an assault rifle under the protected rights of the Second Amendment but do not support individual ownership of an atomic bomb under the protected rights of the Second Amendment, I respectfully request that you please explain your reason(s) for such.