A new year begins tomorrow. The designation of the day when the new year begins is arbitrary. The planet we call Earth makes a lap around the sun every 365 point whatever days. Centuries ago, the Gregorian calendar was adopted by Pope Gregory XIII. Names of our months are derived variously from Roman mythology (e.g., January---"Janus"), Roman leaders (e.g., August---Augustus Caesar) or simple Roman numbers (e.g., October---for the number eight, the original name of that month under the prior Julian calendar). Names of the days of our week are derived from Norse mythology (e.g., Thursday is "Thor's Day"). Time makes for an interesting stew.

   Yesterday I posted, on Facebook, a story about drones and their destructive qualities. A person wrote in "The Guardian" that she worked in the U.S. drone program, and people really should know what goes on in that program. I am critical of both major political parties for the way in which they have allowed the program to fester. At best the drones are 20 percent (20%) accurate with eighty percent (80%) so-called collateral damage. (I misstated the reverse, unintentionally; early morning typo.) At worst the drones only are two percent (2%) accurate. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the casualties and damage are unintended. We know little of this program that has angered much of the rest of the World. In pursuit of security for this country, the program has been counter-productive. For every two suspected terrorists injured or killed---remember, these people only are  suspected and have not stood trial or had anyone verify they are terrorists---we have injured or killed 98 other people. We carry out this program on foreign lands in acts that we would consider acts of war were they carried out here.

   The responses I received varied from "like" to:

   1) My friend Paul Ogden said it is okay when we carry out such strikes on people in other countries, but not to kill or spy on United States citizens. The rights set forth in the United States Constitution and the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are supposed to be the foundations of our society. I know foreign people do not enjoy the full protection of the Constitution when those people are here on our soil. However, the principles espoused in the Constitution are supposed to be aimed at all people. Also, Article II, section 8 of the Constitution contains a specific provision for declaration of war. If this country is under imminent attack, one can argue there is a reasonable exception for sake of time to respond to that attack. Yet even when the United States Pacific fleet was attacked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Congress issued a declaration of war the next day. Since 1941 this country never has followed the requirement of the Constitution that Congress declare war. Use of military force has become too cavalier as a result.The use of drones distances human beings from accountability for acts that are counter-productive to peace and to our country's security.

   2) Another friend, Andrew Kirch pointed out 98 percent inaccuracy is a great improvement over the 99.9-plus percent of bombings in past wars, such as World War II. Even if our bombings were one hundred percent (100%) accurate, we are not justified in most instances to use machines to kill, by remote control, human beings in other countries. As it is, we only are, at best twenty percent (20%) accurate. Other people in the World have come to hate us for our hubris in acting as police of the World. If we were to obtain one hundred percent (100%) accuracy, that means only our drones have hit the persons on a list drawn up by whom? Was there a Congressional vote on the people who are targets? I am not a fan of Congress, but the Constitution requires Congress to declare war, not a computer jockey with a glorified X-box in an office in Missouri or Colorado or wherever the people are who control the drones.

   3) And friend of mine and of The Show Jeff Cox said we have to use drones to fight Islamism. I would repeat my response above about declaration of war. Also, whatever one thinks about various religions, Islam has not declared war on the United States. A mosque was in one of the Twin Towers hit on 9/11. Many believers in Islams were shocked and outraged by that attack. Religion is not a gauge for determination of others as enemies of this country. If that were so, one should say Christian should be held under suspicion as a threat to the security of the United States because Timothy McVeigh appears to have been moved largely by "The Turner Diaries" and the Christian identity movement. McVeigh's views reflect the views of a small percentage of members of various sects of the Christian faith or who believe in the teachings of Jesus without benefit, or burden, of membership in a specific church or order.

   Use of drones, as another good friend posted, is evil. Kent Lamb, good friend and a veteran of the undeclared but bloody Vietnam war, expressed his agreement with my re-post of The Guardian article. The bottom line is use of drones is counter-productive to the stated goal of increasing our national security. We cannot improve our security through killing of people, some innocent and some whose names were derived from lists derived somewhere and created by whomever, in other countries. This only serves as means of increasing recruitment for terrorist groups.