Puffs

“Technology” and “Paperless Society.”

Remember those two ideas that were so popular about 25 years ago?

As technology in the forms of computers and social media came into being, the population was being sold on the virtues of a “paperless society.”

I really wonder if that paperless idea ever came into being. I’ve read where the production of the common 8 1/2 x 11 paper has grown beyond expectations 25 years ago. It seems “everyone wants a copy” of most everything sent paperless.

I’m guessing government regulations also play into this growth in paper production.

However, it may all have to do with decisions made by people because they are afraid of government policies. (They don’t want to put themselves in a position the government doesn’t like.)

I recently got a letter from my health insurance company. It contained four sheets of paper. Let me describe them.

Page 1: the front had my address. The back had the following printed in large black lettering: “This page intentionally left blank.”

Page 2: the front had 90 percent of the information they wanted me to know with maybe 10 percent on the back. (It all could have been printed on one side of the paper if they wanted to.)

Page 3, and 4: these two sheets of paper included some information printed in 17 different languages.

Paperless ? ? ? I’m not so sure!

A O

     Many people have told me (and I am no different) they are brought to tears upon the hearing of “Taps” played at funeral services for either active servicemen or for military veterans. I just got through watching former president Trump lay wreaths at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Washington DC. “Taps” were played three times and I had the same feelings.

This event was the third anniversary of the 13 U. S. Soldiers killed during the withdrawal of U. S. forces in Afghanistan. The former president took time out of his busy schedule to recognize the price the 13 servicemen gave.

It does amaze me that not everyone can connect the dots with what happened that day. What happened three years ago was the same thing that happened in 2012 when Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed in Benghazi.

I fully understand that in war people will be killed, but what I don’t understand is why these killings happened. They were so unnecessary. Decisions were made by U. S. leaders that made the deaths happen. For the 13 killed three years ago, it was President Biden’s decision to exit Afghanistan. A dozen years ago it was the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s decision not to make the attempt to save Ambassador Steven’s life.

What is the common trait in these two events?

In both events, the people in charge were Democrats . . . and they could have made the difference in life and death.

I will still get emotional whenever I hear “Taps” played at funeral services. However, as long as the Democratic Political party stays in power, I should most likely brace myself for more such events.

I ask you folks to connect the dots. The Democratic Party has changed so much in recent years from the days of our youth, that I don’t understand them anymore.

      The efforts of the current Democratic Party’s presidential candidate is trying so hard to escape from any type of “media interview” that I’m reminded of the recent election in Russia. There was no election campaign of any kind.

I humbly ask you to consider voting for anyone other than Ms. Harris.

A O

Other news events of last week that I found interesting were both good and bad.

The good news first: I know you’ve heard of “transgendered women” (men who identify as women as adults) who want to compete in sports as women.

It seems that our good ole Democratic president has been promoting this idea for a while now and some people are fighting against it (for obvious reasons).

Seems the Supreme Court of the U. S. has recently ruled the government could not just go ahead and force schools and others to do so. The Supreme Court ruled the questions had to be returned to the lower courts to be reconsidered.

That’s short and sweet, and probably not the only good news of last week, but certainly is good news.

Now: the not so good news:

It’s entirely possible that Nebraska could easily become known as an “Abortion State.”

In November, Nebraska voters will have the opportunity to vote on two different questions posed by the state last week.

1: We can maintain Nebraska’s current laws concerning abortions wherein we attempt to protect women and babies.

      I think most Nebraskans know it is not a natural or “good” thing to change the course of a pregnancy. The killing of babies at any stage is just crazy. The problems of adding an additional child to a family can be solved by many different means . . . other than killing that baby.

      Please . . . please . . . please vote “For” this measure in November.

2: Certain people want you to adopt a state constitutional amendment making abortions a fundamental right.

Many people rightly assert that this proposed Nebraska amendment would be worse that the infamous “Roe V. Wade” decisions by the Supreme Court.

The reason for this assertion is clearly shown in the wording of the proposal. It goes like this: “All persons shall have a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without interference from the state or its political subdivisions.”

Just what does that mean ?  ?  ?

Well . . . quite simply the answer is they do not want any “regulation on abortions” in Nebraska.

While most every medical practice in Nebraska has regulations (problematic as we may think they are) intended to safeguard the public, abortion would have none.

How can we vote to kill babies?

Nebraskans know that babies are intended to be born nine months after they begin their lives. How can we attempt to change that natural law?

A O