inclusion criteria

I’d like to follow up on my previous post and my allusion to family. Personally, I entertain several meanings of “family” both as a word and as a group of persons. You may yourself harbor strong feelings as to which is correct and you may very well attach a great deal of significance to that definition and it’s correctness.

As people we tend to be either exclusive or inclusive, in that we, each of us, expresses one or the other as a base tendency, while to the degree it is expressed is often a matter of mood, or sometimes chemical enhancement. Those of us whom are inclusive favor the definition of family as a word which we then use to incorporate a body of individuals with whom we feel a particular kinship. While those of us being of the exclusive variety favor the definition as a group and consider it to represent people with whom we have an inherent, usually ethnic or nationalistic bond. Without ascribing rightness or wrongness to either of these axioms, I merely wish to point out the contrast, the taxonomy of social divergence.

So, in any respect the notion of family becomes important, perhaps a little more so at this time of year and as it applies to men and women whom come together from dissimilar backgrounds yet become a family even more so.

Most of us spent our holidays with the family of our choosing, whether by birth or association. However many, a few whom I count as friends did not have that luxury and unlike yours truly it was not of their own choosing, except in the regard that they chose to be professionals, they chose to be soliders. Does that make those men and women heroes? I think anyone of them would strongly disagree, does it make them more or less human? Maybe, maybe not, but they certainly put the good of others before their own selves and that is commendable. No matter where you stand I don’t think anyone can disagree that in regard to their sacrifice all the politics pale in comparison.