Years may change but the concept remains the same: Every Day is Mothers’ Day!
Mother’s Day is a Special Day, Not Just Today but Everyday
Mothers are Always Special!
Each year I wish all of the mothers of the world a Happy Mother’s Day and add something different to my previous wishes.
Happy Mother’s Day to all of you wonderful and deserving mothers of the world. You bore the pain for months, suffered immensely, and sacrificed a lot to give your child life.
Each of you are special and worthy of praise, even those who failed to be perfect, you still rule the world.
Perfection does not exist for us humans. If you erred in your youth or child-rearing practices, you deserve recognition and praise for the pain you endured and thus helped keep the human race alive, popping out babies to face the challenges of life. Some of those children become technological geniuses, innovators, inventors, and the movers and shakers who change the world. Thanks to Moms!
God Truly Blessed Man by Creating Those Special Women Who Become Mothers!
Without the strength, love, tolerance and determination of all you wonderful Mothers of the World, our species would be extinct by now, because most men just want to have fun in the breeding process and leave the pain and suffering to you.
Thanks for doing what all you do!
May Each of You Have a Day so Special that It Lives in Your Mind for the Rest of Your Days as that Extra Special Mothers’ Day of 2020.
Life on the outside sometimes feels as if I am walking through a tunnel, deep into another time zone, right into another life. Well, I reckon that’s what I am doing, straight from the prehistoric era into modern society, acting civilized, not like a pimpin’ caveman.
Since my release and learning how to capture images with the camera (cellphone), I enjoy walking around and taking photos of anything that catches my eye. Some things I do resist, of course, as it’s not nice to snap a photo of an unsuspecting person, especially as she walks down the street. 🙂 I do respect privacy and am considerate of others on most days.
Update: I deleted the ViewBug profile because I didn’t like some of the changes to the website and the overly promotional component by the operators. [Some of my photos are now available for sale through Getty Images.] I have developed a nice collection on my View Bug profile page and have won some awards, even if I do have duplicates because I don’t know how to delete photos I upload, but hey, I’m still in the learning curve for technology.
Imagine what I could have done if I had had a nice camera to use during those adventures. My favorite shots are often of tall buildings and structures or nature. I love insects, animals, flowers and trees, and not having to get film developed!
For all of you youngsters, once upon a time people had to carry a roll of camera film to Kodak or Fuji to have it developed or otherwise use a Polaroid camera, something else from the prehistoric era.
[Note: this blog post contains a sensitive and possible offensive issue to some people. Click to read other of the many blogs on this site or click to go elsewhere if expecting political correctness. Thanks for stopping by to visit this website.]
Patrick Henry, Second Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775
“In March of 1775, the Second Virginia Convention met at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, to discuss the state’s strategy against the British. It was here that Patrick Henry delivered his most famous speech, ending with the quote, ‘Give me liberty, or give me death!’”
Patrick Henry referred to slavery in his famous speech to unite the movement of men, women, and children to stand and fight for independence from the British. When his peers debated whether to work out peaceful arrangements or to use force against the rule of Great Britian, Patrick Henry spoke words heard today:
“Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? … Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
The photo of Patrick Henry’s statue came from the Town Square of McDonough, Georgia. Fifty yards from where it stands, a memorialized Confederate Soldier stands tall amongst the trees, the McDonough Soldier.
American Civil War Confederate Memorial
The McDonough Soldier has a right to stand in the Town Square, as he is a part of History. Though he may represent an unpleasant part of history, it is history, and that statue represents the relative of someone who fought and died in America’s most gruesome war. He deserves to stand where others deemed appropriate many years ago.
Patrick Henry may have waved the Gadsden Flag during battle, another flag that some have claimed represented racism because the designer, Christopher Gadsden, was a slave trader and owner of slaves.
Personally, I don’t see the relevance of what the designer of the flag did, as making the flag representative of slavery or racism, no more than I see the Confederate Flag representing racism because racists use it in their rallies. (Read more on that topic in the excerpt to follow.)
If you want to know about racism, watch the news because race-related issues flood the news channels and flourishes in many cities today, all across the World; it’s not just an issue in America.
An Excerpt from Southern Pride-Waving the Confederate Flag.
CIVIL WAR: I raise the Confederate Flag in this blog to rebel against all of the politically correct BS in the news about issues surrounding Southern Heritage. Some politicians want to stop the celebration of the Confederate Memorial holiday, and to remove from state buildings and grounds: Confederate flags, monuments, statues of Confederate heroes, and other remnants of the American Civil War (1861-1865) because some people find those things offensive. I find it offensive when people lie about history to support their agenda, such lies as the main reason for the Civil War being slavery.
Was it slavery or was it the economic edge Southern plantation owners had over competitors in Cotton markets, due to the slave labor? Economics. Was slavery more of an ideology used by the Union to get the poor to fight their battles? If the Civil War was fought over slavery, wouldn’t President Lincoln have signed the Emancipation of Proclamation to free all slaves before the war began on April 12, 1861, instead of on January 1, 1863? Weren’t the slaves used by the president to fight off Confederate forces who had proved to be a more formidable force than expected by slaughtering his troops in numerous battles? Yes, is the most logical answer based upon the facts and history of the rich using the poor to fight their battles.
I find it offensive for politicians to use the Charleston Church Massacres that I wrote about in “Love and Evil Are Color-Blind,” as justification to remove evidence of the bloodiest and most gruesome war fought on American soil. The war where smaller bands of Southerners held their own against larger troops of Union Soldiers, until the advent of the repeating rifle, which tilted the war in favor of the Northern troops who had more food, guns, ammunition, and other supplies, because of the economic embargoes placed on the South. The North won the war but never defeated Southern Pride. The Confederate flag is a reminder of that, rather than slavery, as has been used to manipulate the masses to take down the flag.
Six-hundred thousand Confederate Soldiers fought against 2,213,363 Union Soldiers.* The southeastern states were the last to fall. When the war ended with the surrender of the last Confederate troop on May 26, 1865, there were 646,392 Union casualties, with 140,414 of those casualties being battle deaths, compared to the 133,821 Confederate casualties, 75,524 of which were battle deaths. After their imprisonment for their part in the war, another 26,000-31,000 Confederate personnel died in Union prisons. With my long history as a prisoner of such forces, I suspect that most of those died due to disease, lack of medical care, mistreatment, and overall poor living conditions.
REBELS WITH A CAUSE: Rebels, those Confederate Southern Soldiers were called, the proud label worn by those who refused to conform to ways established by a government not of their choosing. Rebels, a part of Southern history and Southern Pride for those who died fighting for a cause; not because of slavery or why the politicians decided to fight the Civil War. It was about fighting to keep what was theirs, fighting those damned Yankees who come down to take their land, who raped their women, murdered their children, and burned their homes in the name of Justice–the same as had been done to Native Americans by several Union troops.
Most Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War never owned a slave and most likely never knew why they had to go out and fight, other than to defend their land and heritage. Firing a gun, running through the woods, and working hard to survive came more natural to the Southern man who grew up hunting and fishing to survive, than it did to the Union troops. You can believe that when Union forces heard the rebel yell and saw those southern soldiers waving the Confederate Flag and charging like bulls, that it made adrenaline and cortisol levels soar, instilling fear in everyone’s heart before the battle began with a brutality not known to the men and boys who stood fighting for their lives. Early into battle, Union troops learned to retreat or die when overran by Confederates who fought with a passion to defend their land against the invaders.
Each day I devote, or at least attempt to devote, part of my time to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, and Quora.com. Most often I fail in two or three of those areas.
Most of my posts and online activities relate to prisoners, prison reform, and or criminal justice reform, as well as posting excerpts from the life and times of the infamous Wayne T. Dowdy. Sometimes I address other social issues to let my voice be heard.
I’m a returning citizen, who had never used a cellphone until August 28, 2018, and yet, now I am working at having four websites live before June 2019 arrives. I’m determined to make a difference in the lives of others by doing what I do.
I always want to write my blog posts for straightfromthepen.com and waynedowdy.weebly.com. I just run out of time each day and come up short. 😦
Oh, I forgot, working on revising and writing my books to learn the formatting process to help those caged behind walls, bars and fences and others be published, and as part of one of many planned business adventures.
The point in all the above is that I am a man with a mission who wants to make a difference and to let his voice be heard.
I often disagree with viewpoints expressed by others on penological and social issues. I want to believe that change is possible, and that society has became more humane since the Romans ruled the earth. The following debate is one such social issue I posted as an answer and then replied to on Quora.com:
believe that prison should be tougher for the inmates, since there are too many
luxuries awarded at the expense of taxpayers. Is being in prison as good as
people think it is or worse than people could imagine?
The people who believe that prison should be tougher for the inmates, since there are too many luxuries awarded at the expense of taxpayers, need to sign up for a prison stint to learn about FAKE NEWS. Prison life sucks!
Prisoners learn to tolerate and accept the conditions of prison
life, regardless of those conditions. Humans adapt to their environments.
Rehabilitation versus punishment has been on the table for decades. Better results come from providing programs to help people change their lives, as is evident by the passage of the First Step Act, which requires the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons to create and provide more evidence-based programs to reduce recidivism.
None of those programs will include having prisoners chained and tortured until they decide to repent and change their evil, wicked ways.
The punitive aspect of prison is removing the person from
society; inhumane treatment leads to psychological damage (being in prison
under decent living conditions may still lead to the development of psychiatric
Most prisoners return to society. Which is best: to have men and women confined in an environment that breeds more illness than it treats or cures, or to provide an environment where those men and women learn to change behaviors so that they exit the system in better shape than when they arrived?
An experimental prison program in Connecticut (Prison Reform Progress), which is modeled after those in Germany known to provide more humane living conditions, are showing positive results; meaning that perhaps America will change its failed criminal justice system so that men and women who go to prison will leave and not return, but I guarantee that would not happen if society reverted to the days of torturing and mistreating its prisoners.
Most people on the outside believe that
EVERY PERSON INCARCERATED should NEVER get out of prison and that is a fact
that is 99% true.
I’m sure a lot of that is true, which is of course, is based on
ignorance of the law and crimes that lead to prison. Stereotyping others also
If those who believe in such a way would attempt to investigate and were intelligent enough to comprehend the complexities of the United States criminal justice system, then they’d know how easy it is for someone to go to prison.
Everyone who goes to prison is not a serial
killer, rapist, murderer, robber, or child molester.
I met many men in prison who said, “I never
knew I could be put into prison for doing that.”
How could any rational legislature vote for a bill that would result in some men and women going to prison for 25-years-to-life for crimes as simple as shoplifting or stealing pizza?
If those people who feel everyone who goes to
prison should not be released knew of such laws, would they feel the same?
Then again, the Romans and many Rome citizens
thought it was okay to feed Christians to the Lions for entertainment, so … has
society digressed from what was learned through history about the evil nature
of some in power, to endorse such practices as keeping someone in a cage for
I hope not and know that most do not feel in
such a way, or else the legislatures would not be voting different these days.
Even though you make some good points I stand by my post. Watch any YT video about trials and read the comments of the ignorant and ill-informed if you doubt my thoughts. People get charged with offences such as you mentioned and then get acquitted, but it doesn’t matter in the court of public opinion. You are charged – you MUST be guilty. Lock ’em up and throw away the key. Another “win” for the prosecution!!
YouTube and television programs
only represent a small portion of the population. The editors of the program
controls content to express their views on the issues, or to be what needs said
or shown to get higher ratings.
Even politicians fall victim to
the Editor’s Choice, when the politician says many things during an interview
that the editor cuts to shape into the program’s viewpoint.
I knew several people in prison
who felt the same way as what you state, but they were the same ones who, for a
lighter sentence, helped the government put other people in prison.
As I wrote, a lot of the public opinion is based on ignorance. Most continue to sit in front of a television and watch programs designed to increase viewership through sensationalism, ignorant of what is the truth. Ignorance exists because of a lack of information. 🙂
QUORA Moderation Banned my Response to the Question, “What would happen to the American criminal justice system if no one accepted plea deals and every case had to be resolved in the courtroom?”
I’ve appealed the decision! In two days, my answer generated almost two-thousand views and several upvotes, so to me, that says people were interested in my view on the subject.
The Will of the People Will Not Be Denied!
Official Response by Wayne T. Dowdy
The system would collapse. On September 22, 2003, the Honorable Attorney General, John Ashcroft, “an American lawyer and former politician who served as the 79th U.S. Attorney General (2001–2005), in the George W. Bush Administration,” issued a guidance memorandum to the United States Attorneys (federal prosecutors) and their assistants (AUSA).
The memorandum instructed prosecutors to seek the most serious charges and to stop the practice of dropping charges to get pleas, to still give defendants reduced points for accepting responsibility for their acts, and for their cooperation, but to still seek the most serious charges.
[Click the following links to read a New York Times newspaper article and the Memorandum from the former United States Attorney General, who was correct in his agenda to reduce the disparity in sentencing.]
In a Criminal Law Reporter, I read an article that said the head of the Federal Public Defenders Office, wrote a letter to the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and complained about the memorandum.
The article claimed that if those policies were implemented, more attorneys would recommend their clients go to trial, and that for every five-percent decrease in guilty pleas, the courts’ dockets would increase thirty-percent.
Translation: if ten out of every hundred federal defendants went to trial, instead of pleading guilty, the overburdened-judicial-system would have a sixty-percent increase in criminal cases going to trial. That would be an overwhelming number of caseloads for prosecutors to handle, with those cases having to be tried within established time frames under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution that requires a fair and speedy trial. https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Act
Therefore, a lot of the bogus cases would be dismissed so that the more serious criminal cases could be prosecuted.
I chastised many men who complained about the sentences they were serving, after going into the courtroom to volunteer to be sentenced, some agreeing to twenty-five and thirty-year sentences, rather than taking a chance at fighting their cases. Their cooperation helped fuel mass incarceration practices.
With more guilty pleas and the courts heading for collapse, Congress would have abolished the United States Sentencing Guidelines, enacted into law under the Sentence Reform Act of 1984, which requires substantial sentences under the mandatory minimums. The politicians in Congress may have even reduce some of the ridiculous criminal penalties enacted for a vote.
Push Congress to abolish the plea-bargaining system if you want to end mass incarceration, since the practice violates the anti-bribery statute, Title18 of the United States Code, Section 201(c)(2), which prohibits, “[o]ffers, or promises [of] anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom[.]” 18 U.S.C., Sect. 201(c)(2) [alterations added]
President Donald Trump on Michael Cohen’s Testimony
plea-bargaining process for Michael Cohen, I recall President Trump saying on
television that it should be illegal to show leniency to Michael Cohen for his
The above excerpt from the United States Code proves it is unlawful to pay someone “anything of value” for their testimony.
Freedom is priceless!
Freedom or Reduced Sentences for Testimony Before a Court is Payment
Three Judges in the United States Court of Appeals ruled it violated 18 U.S.C., Sect. 201(c)(2) for prosecutors to give reduced sentences for testimony by codefendants.
Singleton v. United States was decided twenty-years ago but the principles and reasoning behind the three-panel decision is as true today as it was then.
Several politicians criticized the decision and intimidated other judges by introducing new bills and all sorts of garbage. The en banc decision (full-court) reversed the three-judge panel decision but the original three-judges held their ground and stood behind their correct opinion, not driven by political influence.