It’s not earthshaking to note when cutting an apple in half the halves are never on the same side. Some things don’t happen. There are those who’ll make an impossible argument for whatever reason, but in general things are what they are. Not more nor less. 

Anyone who wishes to can search igneous rock for fossils, virtually always without success. Can’t find what’s not there any more than people return from places they’ve never been. And yet, living on the literal rim of an iron ore pit I know rock isn’t simple or consistent. Would be grand to find pure iron, but we take mixed percentage ore as found and work with that. Rarities and exceptions are not reliable, are they?

Keeping with a simple scheme such as halving an apple, how might we do with roles of defender or attacker? Of the two roles, which has a greater likelihood of aggression? 

Defense, whether of land or belief, is static, stuck to what is being defended. In 1683 when a zealous high-minded army came to save Vienna from religious heresy, it wasn’t the city making an invasion. 
I’ll suggest, and call me out if I’m way off on this, the likelihood of aggression (or initial violence) falls on one side of the divided apple. Holding both sides equally violent and culpable is close to believing all the divided fruit is on the same side of the blade. 

An expert may have uncounted fine reasons to equalize or flop liability. Maybe they see just cause holding the attacked guiltier than the attacker. Fine and dandy, but no amount of flopping, twisting, or what-abouting will change who threw the first punch in a specific altercation. They best such a strategy might have been able to cook was calling a historic act the real-root cause of the conflict. But, if that’s done then there’s the odious issue of premeditation to face. 

Stepping on my foot and getting a swift kick in return is far more understandable than if I brood over my injury for years until I’m convinced I have to flatten all your toes with a sledge.

When it comes to halving the apple, this time of year brings out some curiously shaped knives over the who discovered the Americas. 

Oh goodie, that’s a good one. First, begin with saying that credit goes not to Columbus. 
To whom? Who knows. Maybe South Sea Islanders or Chinese. The Portuguese had a connection along with Scandinavian and certain North Africans. 

In this part of MN I’ll bet that beyond Chris C there’s only one contender that comes to mind. Lucky Lief. Fair enough? (OK, I left out the Irish saint, but otherwise fair enough.) 

I’d guess there could be hundreds of discoverers, perhaps more. The Spanish, Italian, Columbus and Vespucci credits rest not on total originality of discovery possibly done by Siberian Susan on her way south to become Aztec Annie. 

Go back 10,000 or 40,000 years, pick a name and hold a celebration. Columbian discovery recognition is built on repeatability. Seems that two thousand years past any discoverer of the New World didn’t discover, return home to report, and return to repeat the process. Lost fishermen from N. Africa didn’t land in Brazil and commence trade. 

So whoever was first is of less moment than establishing regular contact. Now for kickers I’ll add that were CC to be one hundred times worse than reported he’d have to be far worse yet to hit the levels of ill attained by the New World’s highest civilizations conducting human sacrifice and cannibalism on an industrial scale.  Chop and mash as many apples as you like to make sauce, ritual murder and routine cannibalism were normal in the New World. 

Are we collectively better off as things are now, or would we do better by returning to original customs where fattening boys of ten (male privilege wasn’t always a plus) for gourmet dining was a sign of sophisticated civilized living.

It’s a puzzle to me and perhaps for you to grasp just what it is that so often captivates a person. My mother’s volatile dislike of Nancy Reagan came from where? And why? And how? 

How does a functioning person go from “I don’t know them” to “I’m not keen for” and then land on “they’re despicable” all without what I’d call substance. 

I doubt there’s anyone among us who’d approve of being judged in absentia based on allegation or rumor. Hearsay is valid only to those who accept it. 

What I believe is up to me. Freedom of will, association and speech, etc., are essential freedoms, but I assure you I’ve many a time held as valid a notion as bogus as feathers from a winged horse. Wanting to believe a thing because it suits us is our right, but also a potential (probable) curse.

Take f’r example freedom or democracy as noble causes. Yay! And yet, how often does such nobility of purpose turn out to be sham? Some of the most authoritarian pose as anti-authoritarian in hope of getting power-authority in their hands. The ways which our thinking and worthy aspirations get played (as in playing us as fools) is perhaps easiest seen in lively treats such as democratic dictatorship. In that marriage of terms and aspirations which do you think is holding the hammer? Which? 

A thing I’ve mildly (meaning in vague curiosity) noted is the slow demise of FL from the DFL. Not that I’m a political expert (kiss o’ death that would be) or strongly partisan (partisanship and non-allied having side effects that make me wary) but DFL for Democrat Farmer Labor seems a logical big tent label open to rural (the farm component) and urban (labor segment). 

That does seem to have changed. In my in-general view, the longer the title the more suspicious I become. Translated to English, the well-known National Socialist Democratic Labor Party emphasized some of its core, big-tent elements more than others. Once under the umbrella party members were urged to go along. But then, being wiser, we’d never make the mistake of the above, commonly known as NAZI.