I was thumbing through my keyboard recently and came across the obituary of a shop teacher I had in junior high school. I feel the need to enter some thoughts regarding the man, here and now.

Mr. Corneilson was a bear of a man. He towered over me and had a loud booming voice and thunderous laugh. His dark, full beard could be compared to that of the character, “Rubeus Hagrid”, played by Robbie Coltrane in the “Harry Potter” movie series. He was an impressive presence to 13-15 year old boys. Still, for all his potential menace, he had a heart the size of all outdoors. And more than that, he knew how to handle us.

Phil, as I eventually came to know him, not only taught wood shop and ceramic shop, he taught life. He did this without the aid of kid gloves. If a student forgot to wear his safety glasses and Phil noticed him nearing a piece of power equipment ( table saw, jigsaw or the like) he would chuck a hunk of two-by-four at the kid’s shin. His theory was that a black-and-blue shin was better than a lost eye. Normally the student only forgot to wear his safety glasses once. Of course, nowadays Phil would be arrested for such abuse. This is a shame.

He could be economical is his teachings by combining multiple concepts into one scenario. In one lesson on how to buy a screwdriver, he interwove smart consumerism with the honor of standing up for one’s self. He explained that when buying such a tool, the process is: to choose an appropriate screwdriver, which should be held up high and dropped onto its handle. If the handle cracks or breaks, don’t buy the screwdriver. Should a store employee demand payment for the damaged tool, you should explain to the employee that you won’t be bullied into buying a defective product. And this should be done in a controlled voice loud enough to alert as many other customers to your complaint as required to be sufficiently embarrassing to the employee and/or their supervisor.

Stan Laurel (of the comedy team “Laurel and Hardy”) is considered to have been a comic genius. Much of his genius derived from the simplicity of his technique. Stan decided his character needed to walk in a funny way. Rather than spending long hours perfecting this walk, he simply removed the heels from his shoes. Much of Mr. Corneilson’s teaching technique was of similar genius.

Mr. Corneilson commanded respect from his students and speaking as one of them, I can say showing him that level of respect made me feel more like a respectable man, myself. That was extraordinary feeling to have as a young teen (while otherwise living my life as a walking faux pas).

At the beginning of each class, we would sit in chairs facing a blackboard upon which he would display designs of the things we were to create. One day, he preempted his opening spiel with an odd question. “If you found out your father had killed someone, would you turn him in? Would you call the police? We all agreed we wouldn’t, expecting that answer to be what Mr. Corneilson wanted to hear. After all, who likes a rat? He said, “Okay…I’m glad I’m not your neighbor.” And without another word on the subject, he went to work teaching wood shop. The rest of us were left to puzzle over this. It was a simple lesson in the difference between right and wrong, and how doing the right thing might not always be an easy task.

I was a weird little teen with an affinity for reptiles. When we returned to school after summer break, Phil presented me with a snake he’d caught on a farm he’d recently inherited. He told me to sell it. I didn’t. That snake meant a great deal to me…particularly since he’d taken the time to remember me during the summer. Some years later (1974-1975), Phil walked into my pet shop, where, among other animals, I sold snakes. He seemed pleased to see me until he noticed a cage with rabbits which wasn’t completely clean of their droppings. He gave me hell. All I could do was laugh…and clean the cage. It was during that visit when I learned he was the father of nine children. All of a sudden his ability to handle his students made sense.

Some time in the late eighties or early nineties, I called him to deliver some heart-felt accolades. I wasn’t sure he’d remember me. He Did. “Weren’t you that weird, little, blond kid?”

I’m 67 years old now (perhaps still a little weird) and my daily decisions continue to be guided by my favorite teacher’s words. I’ve had had a successful career as a herpetologist and travelled to places like the Amazon studying and collecting reptiles, I’ve acted in commercials, TV and radio, on stage and in film, I spent 20 years as a journalist. For many years I plied all three trades at once. I could be retired now, but I’m not. I work hard owning a medical equipment business with my older son. We deliver and service mobility equipment to/for disabled veterans. There is great joy in being productive. Mr. Corneilson had a hand in all of it.

You don’t come across many teachers like Phil. To me, he was an original. May he rest in peace.

I wonder how long it will take for scientists and other logical minds to begin voicing their opinions about the negative effects liberalism is having on societies in general and the United States’ population in particular.

Psychiatrists have clearly indicated children raised in traditional families fare better than those raised in single parent households or families with two parents of one gender. Liberals not only ignore this fact, but champion the worse choice.

The moral and ethical value of a society is easily determined by how it treats its most innocent and vulnerable members. With regard to the subject of abortion, liberals believe a woman’s right to convenience outweighs the right her unborn child has to simply survive. Liberals cloak this idea by claiming a woman has a right to determine the treatment of her own body. Nobody disputes that fact. However, there is another person in the equation whose life is being ignored in that concept. Which one of those two is the most innocent?

Liberals don’t like the idea of personal responsibility. Actions, in their minds, should be free of consequences. This can be seen in their push to allow inmates the right to vote, and as mentioned above, sex without consequence, among other examples. Excluding an instance of rape, a woman chooses to have sexual intercourse. If a child is conceived, that is a natural, potential consequence. Should that child’s life be forfeit if it interferes with the woman’s educational plans or forces her to postpone her vacation? Not in a society with any type of ethical values.  Liberals ignore this by insulating women from the actual facts of what abortion entails. It is not politically correct to acquaint a woman who is considering abortion with any real facts. Even young teenagers aren’t required to consult their own parents regarding abortion. Liberals rationalize the unborn as not “living” until the birth has occurred. In other words, it is legal to kill a child while any physical part of the child remains within the woman’s body; but as soon as the entire child emerges, the same killing is legally considered murder. Strangely, liberals count the loss of an unborn child in a drunk driving accident to be unjustified homicide. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

An embryo or fetus is genetically homo sapiens. It survives within its own environment (the woman’s womb) and thus is alive. To put an end to that life is, by definition, homicide. Is it justifiable homicide? Justifiable homicide occurs when someone is executed for a heinous crime, killed as an enemy combatant, or killed in defense of an innocent person’s life. The innocent person in an abortion is the unborn child.

Pro abortion arguments could rationally have merit in debate. It could be argued that requiring a woman who has been raped carry the child to term would constitute the continuation of a violent crime. Perhaps abortion would be justified, holding the rapist responsible for an unjustifiable homicide probably not reaching the level of premeditated murder. The termination of a pregnancy due to the likelihood the mother wouldn’t survive the process could be logically argued. An argument for abortion of a fetus suffering a grave physical problem which would deny any cognitive experience of life (such as anencephaly) would be within the realms of ethical logic. Not so for a child born with Downs syndrome or any other physical or developmental issue which would allow for a life experience. In those cases, an ethical society would do well to assist in the financial burden such a birth would create. Liberals will not engage in this type of adult, logical arguments because it is toxic to their agenda of denying personal resonsibility.

Liberals champion self delusion. People are born of one gender (with almost no exceptions). The current controversy lies in how individuals view themselves and to which sex they are attracted. Liberals believe a transgender person has actually changed their sex. A simple blood test would prove otherwise. Homosexuality has never been questioned. The acceptance of homosexual behavior has. Historically, most societies and religions have been unaccepting of homosexuality. What research has been done to determine why that has been the case? Maybe it would be wise to know why that bias has existed for so long. Does it have merit or not?

Liberals threaten freedom of speech. They believe any disagreement with their philosophy must be stifled. The main purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution is to guarantee the rights we have to disagree with and even insult one another. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind. Everyone should have the right to do whatever makes them happy as long as they don’t physically or financially harm others in a malicious manner. This means homosexuals should be allowed to engage in mutually agreeable relationships. People whose beliefs disagree with homosexuality should be able to express themselves. Prayer should be allowed in schools and on any public properties. Atheists  should be able to complain. Those who believe themselves to be something demonstrably different from what facts could or do establish should be free to do so. Parents should be free to raise their offspring as they see fit free from government intervention. No legislation should deny or infringe upon any of these rights. All this is clearly laid out in the Constitution. Conservatives are bound by the Constitution. Liberals don’t believe they are so bound. Liberals view the Constitution as a “living document” subject to change to fit the current fancy. This is the main difference between a republic (the U.S. is a republic) and a true democracy. True democracies, due to their design, always collapse.

True democracies are too expensive to survive. They are over taxed. Winston Churchill compared any state trying to tax itself into prosperity as a man standing in a bucket trying to raise himself by the bail ( the handle).

History has proven socialism and communism breed lackluster results in ambition and motivation among citizens and poor economic results overall. Socialists, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are currently commanding actual interest. This indicates the liberal bent among unionized educators to provide students with sufficient history on the subject. Liberal college professors follow suit often teaching theory while ignoring  pragmatism.

With all rights come responsibilities. As it is illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, the media must uphold its journalistic responsibility to refrain from inciting unrest and riots through partisan reporting and sensationalizing crimes. A clear line must be visibly maintained  between journalism and opinion.

Societal stipends have never worked but that isn’t stopping Stockton, California from trying it again. What did Einstein say about trying something over and over again, always expecting different results? It was his definition of “insanity”.

The concepts of addition and subtraction play no roles at all in the development of  bills proffered by liberal legislators. The fact that an idea is fiscally unworkable doesn’t sway these folks from introducing it and arrogantly denouncing people who point out the fact that these ideas are idiotic.

And speaking of money… when you compare liberals to conservatives, which group knows there are an infinite number of dollars to be earned by those with talent, ambition and energy? On the other hand, which group believes there are only so many dollars to go around, so those dollars must be divided up more equally? Which group depends upon the votes of the young and inexperienced, the naïve, the impressionable? Which group is supported by the older, more experienced, more self-reliant?

Liberals believe the goal is for the poor to reach the level of middle class. Conservatives believe the “American dream” holds much more.  Many poor American families remain poor because they buy into the notion that they are victims with no hope of success or wealth. Many new immigrants achieve the conservative ideal of the American dream because they haven’t had time to be sullied by the liberal politics of “cake and circus” and believe they must earn their own success. So they do.

For those unfamiliar with “Cake and Circus”, it means feed them and entertain them and you will own them. This is very attractive to illegal aliens and others wishing to survive on the treasure of others. This is the reason liberals choose to ignore national border protections and create sanctuary cities. Their ultimate goal is to allow non-citizens the right to vote. Liberal presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, is supporting legislation to allow illegal aliens the right to work for Congress.

Liberals continue to create and pass more and more restrictive legislation and are completely unaware of the effects these laws have upon the population. They can’t imagine a correlation between the reduction of civil liberties and freedoms to accept personal responsibilities with stress and the rising suicide rate. How many things were you free to do ten years ago which if you did them today would be breaking the law?

It seems every other soldier returning home from battle in the Middle East suffers from P.T.S.D.. Why did so few soldiers return from battle in WWII with the same problem? The answer is simple. WWII veterans weren’t raised in a society governed by infants. Kids love to have power over adults. The children of the Khmer Rouge, under Pol Pot, killed between 13%-30% of Cambodia’s population when they had the power. Hitler created the Hitler Youth and gave them power. Liberals want to give the vote to 16 year olds.

The simple fact is that these liberals are egomaniacal psychopaths whose sole desire is to control people.  They have no qualms about what damage they do in the process.

History will prove this to be a sad and stupid era which will, by some means,  come to an end and return to a system of logic. They real question is how long will it take.

There is one other concern. Holding onto freedoms is a constant battle. Again, maintaining the right to be held responsible for our personal behavior is a freedom. Historically, regaining freedoms lost through foolish new laws has always required some type of war and bloodshed. Have you been wondering why Liberals are so “anti-gun”? The Second Amendment to the Constitution is designed to allow us to protect ourselves from an unfriendly government in power. Liberals don’t like the Second Amendment.

Disclaimer: I am a voter, so liberals would have a good rebuttal to my comments employing Winston Churchill’s words once again. “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Kamala Harris is running for President of the United States. She wants to allow illegal immigrants to work in Congress.

QUESTION: Do we want a president who doesn’t understand what it takes to remain a  “sovereign nation”?

Kamala doesn’t understand. Her thought processes are those of a kindergarten student.

The idea of classifying a crime as a hate crime is ludicrous. How can you criminalize an involuntary, emotional reaction? You certainly should criminalize some bad behaviors hate can cause.

But, as it stands, crimes labelled “hate crimes” are prosecuted more vigorously and potential consequences for engaging in such behavior are harsher than other run-of -the-mill crimes.

For now we do have “hate crimes”, so…WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.

Jussie Smollett may have perpetrated a hoax, claiming he was the victim of a violent hate crime. This drew 16 criminal allegations. All were dismissed due to his having surrendered his $10K bail and the fact that he’d worked pro-bono for Jessie Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.

Smollett’s claim, if it had proved false, would have constituted as much of a hate crime as it would have been a hate crime if his claim were true. You don’t excuse hate crimes via forfeiture of bail and a few hours of partisan community service. What we’ve witnessed is unequal protection under the law as provided through liberal racism.