As I started this "Whenever – Whatever – Wherever" Blog, I will not use personal examples of others, unless I know the person I'm referring to won't recognize I'm talking about them; or it is a positive example, one they're likely to be proud of. Starting without getting into specifics, I had my share, and maybe some that should have been given to others, of problems with: the government, non-criminal type; marital and relationships; job and bosses; and a myriad of other typical ones—like everyone else.
Throughout this page, for the sake of understanding, let's start by establishing a common point of view. When I use the following terms, this is what I mean:
Everyone or Nobody means 1 to 5 in a million. My definition. Example -- Nobody wants the earth to explode and kill everyone, yet there are probably some out there that would think this is a great idea.
Large Number or Many: means 25 or more in a hundred. My definition.
Note: I was going to name this blog, My Dailies, but I knew I would never make an entry every day, so I thought perhaps, Weeklies, that also failed. I just didn't want to commit myself to, a sort of, rigid schedule. Okay, daily and weekly were out, that leaves monthly and beyond. I realized at this point that my thoughts would most likely be sporadic at best. So, I opted for, Whenever, because this is a pretty open period. The major difference between this and my Currents, which aren't flowing well, is that, this is about life, whereas, currents are about events.
I've decided to rage about this topic, again, because I feel so strongly about it. Initially I wrote this when the surgeon general announced, June 27, 2006, that the debate is over; secondhand smoke does affect others and cause the same illnesses that smoking causes. Furthermore, knowing that there are many parents that smoke at home and in their car when their kids are present added to my view.
"Parents know what's best for their children," (Aaaaagh! #@%^$@#%&*), I hate it, I hate it. This phrase is spoken by people with an agenda and believed by the ignorant, fanatic, and egotistical. Let's clear the air before I go further. Most parents want the best for their children. What they think is best for their children is not necessarily what is best for the children. Let me repeat, the issue here is not that parents want what's best, but rather they know what's best.
The other night I was discussing parenting with some people. Of course, the topic of “Parents Know What's Best” came up, probably because I rose it. The conversation was for the most part friendly and agreeable. After I left, the topic lingered on my mind. It's never very far when I consider parenting, so let me start with a positive statement.
I believe I and my wife were loving and caring parents. We set a good example for the most part, not perfect but good. We were truthful, respectful, and provided the resources necessary for a healthy family. My wife was a stay at home mom and was there for the kids when they needed her most. During the kids formative years, I was serving in the Navy and away on several occasions for long periods—four to six months. When I was around I supported and encouraged their endeavors. Our kids would talk to us and we never refused or stalled talking to them.
Let me reiterate, while I believe overall I and my wife were good parents, I acknowledge that I fail somewhat. What I don't know is how things would have turned out had I been more attentive in regarding the failures. What I mean is I'm not sure things would have turned out much differently.
I guess the best way to explain this is to give an example. I had asked one of my sons if he wanted to go to college. He said yes—he lied. So, I kept, I thought, encouraging him to get good grades. Years later when he was a parent he told me he never wanted to go to college and that I gave him a guilt trip. If asking him if he wanted to go to college and informing him that college is important, then I'm guilty. I don't think he was afraid to have said no, more like he suspected I'd be disappointed. I suppose to some measure he's correct. I think most parents want their children to far exceed them and become great at what they do. To become a doctor, lawyer, engineer, CEO of a giant corporation, etc., etc. It just occurred to me that regardless of what I wanted them to do, I would be and am happy that they live the life they want. I'm proud of them. They're good spouses, parents, and citizens.
My point is even though our children would pretty much talk to us about anything, I guess there is always something they hold back. I'm thinking it's when we go to them, rather than when they broach the conversation.
Please note when I originally wrote this, circa 2006, Steve Irwin was still alive. He has since passed away, after receiving an injury from a stingray. Regardless, his actions were excellent examples of the "anti-parent that knows what's best for their children."
On Friday January 2, 2004, Steve Irwin of Animal Planet was feeding a thirteen foot crocodile while holding his infant son of one month. I've watched a lot of Steve's shows and have always thought that he took a lot of unnecessary chances but reasoned that's show business. I feel it's wrong because it sets a bad example. He states, as do other wildlife video professionals, you shouldn't do this, I can because I'm a professional; yeah right; like kids are going to listen to them. It would be better to introduce excitement some other way and use good safe methods – some of them carry a risk anyway. In many fields there are inherent dangers, however in most cases they do everything possible to mitigate them. Several of the wildlife experts have been bitten by poisonous snakes – they got lucky because there were film crews to rush them to a medical facility equipped to provide proper aid.
Steve's defense was that he was in control and that his children had to learn about crocodiles because they were in their backyard. In all the interviews not one interviewer asked or stated, "Do you really think a one month old baby is going to learn anything from the experience?" If he said yes, put him away for lying or being plain stupid. About control! When it comes to wild animals, no one is in control, you just keep it as safe as possible. I've investigated numerous accidents where the person got injured, someone else got hurt, or there was costly damage; all of them thought they were in control. I can think of a bunch of things that could have happened. He could have a mild dizzy spell, not likely but not impossible. A distracting noise or bright flash of light. He could have tripped, over his own feet or slipped on something unexpected, like pooh or a soggy wet spot.
He tried to equate what he did to putting a child in a car. While I admire Steve for his enthusiasm and dedication to wildlife, I believe he takes far too many risks, which are not only unnecessary, but they set a bad example. It doesn't matter how many times you say, "I'm a professional, don't you do this." He also stated, "I love my children and would never put them in danger." I cry when I think of all the children that have been hurt or killed because their parents didn't think they were putting their child in danger.
I asked this question, "If parents know what's best for their children, then how come we have so many overweight obese kids. Kids that smoke. Kids that expect the world to get instep with them. Kids that are disrespectful to their parents and everyone else. Kids that hate their parents long after they leave home. And kids in therapy. And. . .."
Sorry, more about, "Parents know what's best for their children." I was having my routine Sunday morning breakfast (June 2003), when seated next to our table, this infant, probably under two years of age, started screeching. It always amazes me how their bci parents think it's cute and ignore the distress it causes others. I noticed that the infant already showed the signs of being overweight. His mother was at least fifty pounds overweight; I'm being generous – it was probably more like one hundred. She was stuffing him like the food supply would run out.
I thought of the famous saying, "Parents know what's best for their children." Yeah right! If parents know what's best then how come they abuse them, both physically and mentally, there are so many fat kids, kids that can't read, kids that have no respect for others, the environment, or property, . . .. I could go on and on. As a parent, I'm sure I wore the parent bci hat enough times, and I'm not sure I ever really knew what was best. I always wanted what was best for them. I wanted them to be happy and successful. I worked at instilling in my children the values I held that would serve them well. Honesty, integrity, dedication, and a strong work ethic are a few; there are many more. I realized early on that children learn from what they observe and do. I can see a few of the bad habits my wife and I have present in our children, fortunately they aren't serious. Thankfully, most of the important good ones got through. Parents that believe they know what's best for their children, are the worst kind BCI's in this category. At best, a parent will listen to their children, evaluate what others (not just the so called expert) say or do, gather whatever other data is available, and then hopefully make their best decision. I guess you could call me a Preaching BCI for the previous; please don't be too hard on me my blood boils when I think of the saying, "Parents know . . .."
Some more food for thought related to, "Parents know what's best for their children."
We will put a parent in jail, or worst -- take the child away, if the parent spanks a child; to be clear, I mean spank, not beat -- a well-placed smack on the bottom, that does hurt but does no damage. Yet a parent that mentally abuses their child may be thought a good parent. The sad part is that the mentally abused child will carry the abuse the rest of their lives and may pass it on to their children. Often these children lead a very depressed life and sometimes they commit suicide. What about the parent that causes their child to be obese by over feeding and using food as a reward. Parent that smoke in the house or car, where they subject their children to secondhand smoke.
On June 27, 2006, Admiral Richard Carmona, The US Surgeon General, declared the debate is over, "Secondhand Smoke" harms non-smokers. He presented these findings in a 670 page report. Some statistics reported in The San Diego Union-Tribune, June 28, 2006, indicated that 20.9% of adults smoke, 49,000 premature deaths were attributed to secondhand smoke, 400 sudden infant death syndromes were caused by secondhand smoke, and one in five children are routinely exposed to secondhand smoke. These parents know what's best for their kids. Yeah right! The Surgeon General urged state and local governments to ban smoking in public. How about some laws to protect children from parents that know what's best.
August 2006: A recent study (2006) determine that a graduate from a good college or university was equally as likely to be successful in business as a graduate from an "elite" university. Essentially, rising to the top is more dependent on a persons' ability than on what school they attended. Parents that drive their kids, from an early age, before they even know what the child's desires are or what they're capable of, is another indicator of wanting what they think is best, but not necessarily knowing what's best. What's important to parents, may not be important to a child once they've grown up. At this writing, there were over two million runaways in America; I wonder how many of them were driven to it by parents that know what's best. Parents need to encourage and guide – not choose or coerce, as do parents that know what's best for their kids.
August 27, 2006: While returning from breakfast I observed a vehicle driven, by a man, with a very young child, in a car seat, on the passenger side of the front seat. I am always amazed when I see parents putting their children in an unsafe position. Parents that leave kids, by themselves, in a car or at home to make a quick trip, creates a situation that has been disastrous numerous times. Also, this day, a father left his five year old with his eleven year old, to make a quick trip. The five year old was not breathing when he returned. He took her to the hospital where she died sometime later. Now the police are considering charging the eleven year old with murder and the father with child endangerment.
Apocalypse!
September 16, 2022
Note: I was supposed to post this earlier, i.e., close to a year ago. Better late than never and furthermore, I believe it's appropriate even now. We're still dealing with the Covid-19 virus and average above 300 deaths per day in the United States, for the week ending September 14, 2022, it was 325.)
I've heard that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. I've also heard/read, words to the effect that, "In every apocalyptic movie there is a government that refuses to believe scientists." They forgot to add, that government denied it because it would affect their image and the people would rather believe the politicians than the scientists. Hey, if we pretend it's not real, it won't happen; Yeah Right!!! Like Trump said, "If we don't test, there won't be as many cases reported." Yeah Right, again!!! Hmm, see any similarity with the Coronavirus and some politicians?
October 14, 2021 — I was speaking with one of my associates, whom I gathered did not get the COVID-19 vaccine. I'm sorry, but it boggles my mind why someone would not protect themselves, which in turn protects others. All of the benefits are supported by extensive research from an enormous variety of sources: university studies, health organizations studies, and 'now not trusted' government organizational studies—both American and worldwide. I used government 'organizational' because it is important to understand that organizations, in America, like the CDC, HID, FDA, HRSA, and others main job is to protect people.
As of this day, (circa October 2021) some 6.64 billion people worldwide have received at least one dose and over 189 million Americans have been fully vaccinated plus millions more have been partially vaccinated. In the US over 400 million doses have been administered.
Common side effects:
Arm
Pain
Redness
Swelling
Soreness, a day or two
The rest of the body
Tiredness
Headache
Muscle pain
Chills
Fever
Nausea
Other severe side effects, myocarditis (chest pain, shortness of breath, feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart) are rare. I'm sure that someone might have died from the vaccine, however the number of people reported to have died after receiving a vaccine is not uncommon for the number of people that would normally die in a group of millions of people. Most of the deaths were reported as being among older, past eighty.
According to Ideastream Public Media organization as of August 30, 2021, there have been more than 369 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S. During this time, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received 7,218 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine but a causal link to the vaccine has not been established, according to the CDC. "However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets, which has caused death," according to the CDC website. The article goes on further to explain misinformation. A more recent report, January 2022, indicates that only about three people died due to blood clots from one of the vaccines. Steps are now taken to treat the problem if it occurs.
It's roughly ten months since I've gotten my first shot and since then I've gotten the second and a booster. If they suggest another booster, I'll get that also. I've had no real side effects, excluding a sore shoulder where I was injected—it was mild and it only lasted a day or so. I've been out socially and only wear a mask when required. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't had Covid. And if I did, I was asymptomatic.
Addendum: January 30, 2022: Last week on the news was a story of a man that needed a heart transplant. He's been deemed ineligible because he hasn't received all his vaccines; in this case his COVID-19 vaccine. What amazes me is that the man refuses to get the vaccine. His wife said he wants a guarantee that he won't die from it. One thing for certain is that he will die if he doesn't get a transplant and there is no guarantee he won't die during the operation.
I don't think anyone could guarantee someone would not die from the vaccine, any medical procedure, or medicine, no matter how innocuous it has proven over years of use and taken by millions of people. Yet, there are always possible exceptions. What scientists and most people depend on to decide is probability. Let me give you a very crude example:
Someone is holding a gun to a person's head. They tell that person that they must pick up one of the revolvers in front of them. The person is told that one gun has one empty chamber and the other has five. Furthermore, they are told which is which and that the cylinders have been spun. They are given one minute to pick up the gun, put it to their head, and pull the trigger. You can do all sorts of analysis. Because the someone holding the gun to the persons head has no real reason to lie, I think most would pick up the gun with the five empty chambers; I know I would. Yet, there are those that would pick up the single empty chamber gun because they'd assume it's a trick.
My point is the official numbers support that the COVID-19 vaccine with the booster substantially reduces risk of hospitalization and death. As the above numbers indicate it is extremely safe. Yes, there are side effects but they are mild. Unfortunately, society has lots of people that would pick up the one empty chamber gun, rather than trust scientific data.
It is now September 2022 and I've gotten my third booster and will get any further booster recommended. Since the outbreak of the virus over ONE MILLION people have died. Since the introduction of the vaccine most of those that have died or been hospitalized have been non-vaccinated people. Truly tragic.
The Exception Rationalization
or We Believe What We Want to Believe.
August 17, 2022
Early August 2022, I was sitting at the bar, nursing my drink, with nothing on my mind—some people might say it's normal—when I heard an across-the-bar-conversation that was going on, when one of the guys said that George Burns lived to a hundred and he smoked and drank. I'm not at all sure if his statement is factual. I have no idea if Burns drank and I can't recall ever seeing smoke coming from the cigar he was holding. While writing this I decided to check and found that several images showed that his cigar was in fact lit and that he blew some smoke. Still don't know about his drinking habits.
Moving on, from the other side of the bar another guy said it's genetics. He said, "I know a woman in her nineties that smokes like a chimney." Another said, "People that don't smoke get lung cancer." They were implying that no matter what you did your life span was genetically set.
Another good example, at least I think it is, a woman said in response to the flu vaccine, several years before the Covid-19 emerged, I never got the vaccine and never got the flu. She said this while coughing and clearly fighting a severe cold. The fact is that she seemed to have the cold the entire winter season. I'd have thought it smoker's cough except it went away in the summer months. Most of the people I know get sick from time to time and stay home to recuperate. Although I get the flu shot, I, infrequently, get a sore throat, cough, runny nose, and a fever—it usually runs for a four day period. Most years I don't get sick.
I didn't say a word. Because the conversation was loud, I just listened. I'm becoming good at keeping my mouth shut and avoiding conversations like this. However, I do hear similar things like this all the time when someone smokes, drinks heavily, objects to seatbelt, objects to wearing lifejackets, or a myriad of similar things. Most will say (rationalize), "When I was growing up we didn't have seat belt, or I drank from a hose, we had lead paint in our house, ..., and I managed to survive. What they're not saying is that a lot of kids facing the same situation didn't make it. Seatbelts and lifejackets are good examples of things that have reduced injuries and deaths.
Well, I believe in statistics. The probability of a smoker getting cancer is at least eight times greater for a never-smoker and twice as that of a previous smoker, per Cancer Research. Furthermore the odds of a smoker getting emphysema, heart problems, and other diseases is greater than for a non-smoker.
I have to agree though that genetics plays a role in health and longevity, however there are numerous other factors that also contribute. One personal example is my genetics: like my father I had high cholesterol and a blocked artery, which led to a heart attack some fifteen years ago. My father didn't have available the insertion of stents to open arteries and bypass surgery. Fortunate for me I exercised regularly which led to discovery of my blocked artery before it did damage to my heart. Details of it are on my webpage Am I Stupid or What?
While genetics is a key element, it is not the only thing. The fact is there are numerous things that contribute to health and longevity: diet; exercise; rest; stress; the environment, which includes the Sun, air, water quality, temperature, and humidity; healthcare; lifestyle; …; literally the list is almost endless. If we consider in the past that life expectancy is increasing for a number of reasons. Consider that the average life expectancy in 1700 was 41 years. So, if genetics were the only thing we'd still be dying around 41.
My point is people will rationalize things away that, if they accepted, would necessitate them making a change; or they might say, "I'm going to die anyway, so I might as well enjoy myself." I wonder, "Are they really enjoying themselves?"
Teacher! When Does It Cross the Line?
August 16, 2022
In an article I read August 5, 2022, Titled, "Wisconsin School District Bars Employees from Pride Flags and Preferred Pronouns." The policy Plum (Superintendent Stephen Plum) is referring to prohibits staff from using their positions to promote partisan politics, religious views, personal propaganda, or (for) monetary gain, per an article in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Also, in the article, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the writer said, "What does this have to do with a pride flag? Your guess is as good as mine." My guess it's a statement that being gay is okay; I agree it's okay but it's not the teacher's job nor responsibility to teach this—that's my guess of why it's wrong. Therefore, if you allow a pride flag or black lives matter poster, then why not allow a Christian cross, a statue of Buddha, or the Republican Elephant or Democrat Donkey symbol. Why not allow teacher to post vote for "Whomever." Where do we draw the line?
I'm reasonably sure the people that signed the partition believed there is nothing wrong with displaying a pride flag, except there are people offended by it. I'm not attacking nor am I defending the pride flag, what I'm attempting to say when we display something like the pride flag, it's a personal (propaganda) statement. Like prayer in school, a lot of people want it, more than don't but the point it's not proper in a public school, although this supreme court is likely to say it's okay, however, till they do it's not allowed.
So, the question is, "What should a teacher be allowed to present in a "Public" school classroom or on campus. I hope that most, if not all, public schools rules prohibit staff from using their positions to promote partisan politics, religious views, personal propaganda, or use their position for monetary gain as it is in The Kettle Moraine School District of Wisconsin policy.
While I don't want to insult anyone, if you can't understand the reason for the rules you're— I've decided not to be stupid and put a label on people in that category. Let me instead focus on what I believe should be taught in a "Public" school classroom and on the campus. We, that is you and I the taxpayers, pay teachers to teach the approved curriculum and nothing more. It's not up to a teacher to attempt to influence children, particularly if their parent may have opposing views.
I'm worried about the environment and animals, many of which face extinction. Whether you believe it or not the signs are that there is global warming. The air quality in many areas, as are many water supplies, are full of carcinogens. I'm for protecting the environment and saving animals from extinction, yet I'm against teacher that advocate for this, in their classroom, unless it's part of an approved curriculum. Only a biology or ecology teacher should present an approved curriculum that shows the need to properly manage nature to insure it's here for future generations.
Simply put, it's not a part of a teacher's job to use their classroom as a platform for expressing what they believe.
Addendum, added January 6, 2023: I know I've said above, my view of what teachers, in public schools, should teach. Simply put, they should teach the subject they were hired to teach and nothing more, period. I stated my case and I'm going to repeat it again, because I've just seen another video regarding the subject the teacher teaching material not related to the subject matter; particularly when it comes to religious belief, politics, and other personal matters. Much of what the teacher believed, I agreed with, nevertheless, the classroom is not the place for them to express their personal views. They were hired to teach a subject or subjects using a standard curriculum.
Ignorance or Stupidity—You be the Judge:
July 28, 2022
July 27, 2022: Today I was minding my own business trying to figure out plots for chapters in a book I'm writing. I was at one of my clubs, nursing my drink while I glanced at the TV and let my mind flounder all over the place. My headset was off when several of the people sitting at the bar got into a discussion about the local hospital requiring proof of having received the Covid-19 vaccines. If you didn't have it you couldn't visit. If you had to be admitted you would be required to take a Covid-19 test.
I'd like to point out before going further that the conversation was loud and nearly impossible to ignore.
One of the participant said, "I'm not vaccinated and I won't submit to a test. I guess I'm in big trouble if I have a 911 (medical—I assume) emergency because I won't let them test me. I've heard that the side effects from the shot are severe. Not enough time has been spent researching it's effects and effectiveness. He went on to say I'm not going to allow something into my body that might be harmful. Covid-19 has been around years before the pandemic started. I saw it listed on an old Lysol bottle label."
One of the other participants added that it's all a conspiracy. It seem to me that to avoid accepting what is likely the truth, that they don't want to be true, these people rationalize that it's a conspiracy.
Yet, another stated, "Well, we reached eighty percent that have either had the vaccine or been infected, that's considered herd immunity." I'm not sure he's correct. I notice that people like to spout statistics without any real proof. The current variant is spreading rather rapidly, although it doesn't appear to be as deadly.
I wanted to yell across the bar to the guy that said I'm not vaccinated, nor have I been tested, "You're an idiot and unbelievably stupid. You smoke which has proven to be detrimental to health but of course you're the exception. And you drink, a bit more than moderately, almost every day. Alcohol is known to be harmful if used over a long period but again, you're the exception. And of course, what do doctors and scientist know, they're just part of the establishment. Incidentally, the Covid-19 test is not invasive. All they do is stick a cotton swab in your nose, it may be a bit uncomfortable but that's all, there are no side effects from the test nor are you harmed in any way. One more thing, I don't think the Lysol company predicted we'd have a pandemic of Covid-19 before 2019; it was a typical fabrication and rationalization. He compared it to the flu. Furthermore, nearly all the people that are currently being hospitalized and dying have not been vaccinated. Incidentally, as I understand, the vaccines have been in development for ten or more years, they started to develop them when the SARs virus epidemic happen in the mid-east and modified them for Covid-19 virus. I've had the vaccine and boosters, and so has everyone in my family. None of us had any side effects beyond a sore arm. Of the hundreds of millions that have received the vaccine only a minuscule number have had serious side effects and those effects have not been proven to be associated with the vaccine, except for the Pfizer, which I think causes blood clotting in certain people. I won't go into it but statistical analysis predicts a certain amount of people will die in a group of a hundred million any given day."
I'm proud of myself; I kept my mouth shut. I knew it would have been of little value when you deal with people that want to believe, "What they want to believe." The Donkey and The Tiger, on my page, "Food for Thought II" is a story that really illustrates this behavior. Of particular importance is the moral of the story. On the page "We believe . . ." delves into the subjects of "What they want to believe" and "Cognitive Dissonance," or simply put, believing only what you want to believe.
Smart (Intelligent) People
June 29, 2022
As defined by a dictionary: smart (smärt) adj. smart·er, smart·est, the first meaning:
Having or showing intelligence; bright.
Canny and shrewd in dealings with others: a smart negotiator.
I'll expand the definition of Smart/Intelligence at the end. A quick note about stupidity: Goto my page "Stupidity," where I delve into the subject, so I won't discuss it here. I'll just say that stupid people do the opposite of smart people.
Am I smart, sometimes yes and a lot of the time no. However, I really do want to find out what's right and what's the right thing to do. I think in making a decision it is smart to gather and carefully analyzing available data and information and then make an informed decision. I question the credibility of what many people say, what I read, and of course, the media. It just occurred to me that intelligent people don't necessarily go with "The Flow."
As I age, more rapidly than I'd like, I become more and more disappointed in many of the people I once thought were intelligent. Yes, most are quite good in specific areas, like making money, building things, sports, the arts, trivial knowledge, and a myriad of similar things. Yet, in life they appear to be out of touch with reality; they disregard common sense (logic), science, and other accepted reliable sources.
For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to create a new political party, that way I won't have to offend anyone. My new party is The Afugg party. The Afugg party stand for American's for unimaginable good government. Because it doesn't matter what party that is in current existence there have been politicians accused, charged, and in many cases convicted of varying crimes. Yet, people still vote for them. And we wonder why we have bad government, oh, of course it can't be an Afugg party believer, it's the other parties fault.
The typical response, from a supporter of a party to a statement, in this case, that an Afugg party politician was indicted and convicted of kickbacks from a government project, they will say something to the effect, "Well so and so from another party did it or what's so bad about it, all politicians are crooks." Sorry, it's easy to show stupid people, but this discussion is about smart people.
Okay, back to smart people. First smart people aren't always smart, but they are when it comes to important things. They belong to the Afugg political party. The Afugg political party stands for: Honesty, Integrity, and Ethics. The Afugg party supports protection for people (military, police, fire, and health), a well maintained infrastructure, excellence in public education (at all levels), accountability for government spending and eliminating waste, protecting the rights of individuals — while considering that some rights may be in opposition to other rights and that one person's rights may infringe on another's, and working in a bipartisan manner to deliver what's best for all citizens. The Afugg's party theme song is, "The Impossible Dream." Their motto is, "You get the kind of government you vote for."
Oh, one last thing about the Afugg politician that committed a crime and the member that indicating it was okay; both would be expelled.
My plan was to give a whole bunch of examples of smart behavior, so instead of boring you, I will just say, I believe that Smart/Intelligent individuals will do the following:
Make decisions that benefit them. According to a theory of economics, "People will do what they feel is in their own best interests." While making their decision, they also strongly consider the affect it will have on others and factor that in.
When making an important decision, they will use logic, accepted scientific laws and theories, available data (from reliable sources — both pro and con), and they don't accept something just because they like someone or the person that said it aligns with their general views, belongs to the same organization, political party, or religious group. Essentially they think for themselves. Lots of people think they think for themselves but in reality they don't.
They don't blame others for what they do.
They don't expect others to have the same beliefs as they do, particularly when it comes to religion, politics, and other personal views; and even though they may disagree, they respect the other's right to believe what they want.
They don't affix labels on others or call them derogatory names. My view of people that use name calling and affixing derogatory comments to others is that they're attempting to lower the person(s) to their level.
When they make a mistake, they own it and learn from it; they don't blame someone else.
They don't attempt to reason with an unreasonable person. Another way of saying this is, "They don't argue with a fool because if they do there are two fools arguing." The Donkey and The Tiger, on my page, "Food for Thought II" is a story that really illustrates this behavior.
Just a bit more: One of my ‘food for thoughts'(f4t) is how I define the difference between "Knowledgeable, Intelligent, and Wisdom."
Knowledgeable: Knowing 'something.'
Intelligent: Knowing how to use the 'something.'
Wisdom: Knowing when to use the 'something.'
I didn't include "Smart" in the above because I'm not sure if it should be considered intelligence or wisdom, or perhaps it encompasses a bit of both.
There are numerous Google pages that discuss the differences. Suffice it to say, the above F4T is my simplified way of distinguishing between them.
Random Acts of Kindness
June 26, 2022
June 26, 2022: Today I was watching YouTube videos, specifically "Random Acts of Kindness." I had an Epiphany of sorts. Two things happened to me: I felt good and my eyes teared, well maybe I cried a little. It occurred to me that watching these videos affirmed that I am a caring person. It makes me wonder how others respond. I guess I'm attempting to say that a person's reaction to the events shown says a lot about them.
When I finished, I realized it was a good way to start my day; uplifting and hopeful.
Knowing it All
February 2022
February 14, 2022: I was at one of my haunts relaxing and nursing my wine. One of the televisions had the Olympics hurling competition on. One of the patrons asked across the bar, "I wonder how much a hurling stone weighs." Another guy said, "Ask Art, he'll know." I ignored his snide innuendo that I'm a know it all and looked up the weight using Google. Turns out the stones weigh forty-four pounds for Olympic competition.
A day or two later, I began to reflect on his comment, i.e., I am a know it all. So, I set out to formulate my response the next time it happens, if it does. I will start with, "Hang on a minute. First off I resent your implication that I'm a know it all. If you took all the knowledge that exists, represented by the oceans, my knowledge would barely fill a small pail. If you really paid attention, you would have observed that most of the time I'm silent. The questions and comments I usually respond to are those that are related to my education and experience. All of the other questions I respond to can easily be found on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, like the weight of a hurling stone. Furthermore, in most conversations, I keep my mouth shut when I don't know and when I'm listening to pure bullshit, and from people that really think they know it all. Nearly all of the time I give an answer, I've just looked it up. Yes everything on the internet, in books, and on television may not be true, however, for the most part search sites and Wikipedia will provide accurate information on stuff like who won the 1989 Super bowl, how many world series have the Yankees won, what does the circle at the top of the penalty box mean, . . .. And the fake news is anything but fake, it's just that people can't accept that they may be wrong or it doesn't support their disillusioned view. The freedom of the press is so important that it was put into the Constitution to protect our democracy. One of the first things dictators, or would be dictators, do is to suppress the free press or convince people it's Fake!"
I'd pause, then add, "One last comment. I've observed that people that insult and bully, do so to bring the person down to their level."
At this point I'd probably just give up. I found that it's nearly impossible to truly talk to myopic people. What they fail to see is that most of the things I respond to, simple knowledge data, are things that I've been involved in or received in education, however, that doesn't necessarily make me right. Also, I suspect unlike most people, I look for answers and observe what's going on. Let me be clear, I do my best not to pay attention and eavesdrop on conversations around me. However, sometimes it's nearly impossible not to hear, even when I've got my head set on and I'm listening to it. For the most part, I just keep what I think to myself. I think that most people just move through life with, "that's the way it is" and never ask why; I do.
Life's Turning Points and Values
February 19, 2022
If there is really one good thing about getting older, it is the ability to reflect on life and the past. Each year about this time, near my birthday, I look back to see what has changed and where we are going. What has struck me, is what I now value. Things -- such as, cars, money, furniture, stereos, etc., -- seem to have lost their driving force. They have the power to motivate the young and ambitious. I've found, for me, that love, family, friendship, health, and contributing, no matter how little, to making the world a better place is what matters most.
Material things come and go, they get old and wear out (so do we), they lose their importance and we get bored with them. The events of the heart, not necessarily amour, but of creation, watching a child grow, or a puppy play, smelling a rose, looking at a glorious sunset, or meeting a friend. These memories last forever and give us identity. As we move through life, there are many events that change our direction or give us a new purpose. Some are drastic, others take time. They all change us somewhat. These events can be as fast as a heart attack, or slow as making a new friend, or as big as an earthquake or as small as a smile.
When I reflect on the past and examine what has changed me (hopefully for the better), I think of one special friend. For me, he's that one in a million that always comes to mind. In a letter to him on his ninetieth birthday I wrote, "Although time together was brief, your encouragement, caring and positive outlook has contributed to my personal values, as outlined earlier, and what I believe is really important in life. I hope you have a wonderful birthday, a spectacular holiday season, and the best of all possible life." The entire letter is available on my Gifts From The Heart's page.
I guess my objective is to get you, the reader, to think about what is really important and valuable. Like me, you've probably heard that people on their death bed rarely, if ever, say, "I wish I worked longer and harder, I wish I made more money," or other such material things. The truth is that they are more likely to say, "I wish I spent more time with my family, paid attention to my health, contributed more to making the world a better place," and other things money can't buy.
"Tyranny of the Majority"
February 17, 2022
A little research revealed that John Adams is credited with the statement, "Tyranny of the Majority." Although it is likely based on Socrates hatred of a pure democracy, that is, the majority rules. He and many others were concerned about a unicameral government, i.e., a government where all rested in one group. In the end, the founding fathers of America settled on three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive. To further strive for the protection of the minority, the legislative was spilt into two: House of Representatives and Senate. The Senate is not based on population, it's based on states.
In 1831, an ambitious and unusually perceptive twenty-five-year-old French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville, visited the United States. In his book Democracy in America, is his statement of "Tyranny of The Majority."
In his book, "On Liberty," written 1859, John Stuart Mill's argued, the "Tyranny of the Majority" (or Tyranny of the Masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.
Google definition: Democracy a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. I've been given to understand that a pure democracy the entire population would vote. In a democratic republic, like America, representatives are elected to represent the people.
The question is, do we base rule on education, wealth, perhaps, physical strength—which would eliminate women in most, if not all cases—or some other factor.
"Why Socrates Hated Democracy" is an awesome YouTube. It shows how a person that promises to make your life better can be elected despite it being untrue. His view was that voters should be skilled in what they're voting for and not just because someone is appealing. Voters that actually knew what they were voting for; what an interesting concept. The problem is how does one determine if the voter knows?
The one thing I'm absolutely sure about is that there is no conceivable system that will make everyone happy. By everyone, I'm not speaking of one or two, but rather groups of varying sizes and in some cases the group maybe the majority.
So, what's the answer? I don't know, but I wish I did. It would appear that there is no perfect solution.
In every organization I belong to and all that I'm familiar with they are governed by "Majority Rules." In America we have The Constitution, Bill of Rights and in organizations they have by-law to protect the rights of all.
Values: Truthful/Lies, Ethical/Cheater, Caring/Selfish, ...
November 23, 2021
Originally, I had Honesty/Lies but I realized that honesty has several meanings. I know lots of people that would not steal, however, when it comes to telling the truth, I wouldn't trust them, as the saying goes, as far as I could throw them. In the clubs I go to, I have no problem leaving money on the bar, but many of those same people say things I discover later are not true.
I want to start this piece by referring to something I wrote previously which in this discussion is so, so, apropos.
People that use bad examples done by others, usually by a person they dislike but not always, to justify something they've done or a person they support did:
It's the kid's argument, e.g., "Timmy's mom lets him stay up later and doesn't rag on him for getting grades, D's or F's, so why can't I stay up later and get grades like Timmy?" I would hope that this appears to you as very childish and you would think, perhaps hope, by the time a person were in their twenties, they would stop using this type of rationalizing. A crime is a crime is a crime. It doesn't matter how many people did it before, and maybe got away with it, it's still a crime. Don't try to convince me that it's okay to have been a draft dodger because others were draft dodgers. I don't care if you want to consider the individual some sort of hero, just don't tell me what he or she did was okay, because someone else did it, regardless of who that someone else is. Fortunately for society, there are more people that do the right thing.
November 2021, around the fourth, it was revealed that Aaron Rogers wasn't vaccinated. In a news conference, I think prior to the NFL regular season starting he was asked, "Have you been vaccinated?" He answered, "Yeah, I'm immunized." What most reporters are focusing on is the 'I'm immunized' as being misleading. What they fail to focus on is the 'YEAH' which by dictionary definition is equal to 'YES.' Bottom line is he lied. It doesn't matter what he said after the YEAH, it's all Bull and intended to be misleading.
What makes me even angrier, is Tim Tebow's (ESPN First Take, November 5, 2021) rationalizations about the acceptability of lying. To me, his remarks are unbelievably childish, and they imply 'if others lie it's okay for Aaron to lie' and therefore he shouldn't be punished. The fact is there is no punishment for lying to the media, except for the media calling the liar out. For a supposedly religious man, Tebow's remarks are quite inconsistent with the doctrine of righteousness; if I remember he's the one that used to kneel in the endzone and thank god.
Like crimes, lies vary, some crimes are more serious than others. Shooting someone is a hell of a lot worse than letting air out of their car tire; both are crimes. Aaron Rogers' lie could have cause serious illness to his family, friends, and teammates. It's not the same as a coach lying about an injured player's status to the media. Then Tebow uses the stupid argument, well if he's punished, they should punish everyone, implying because they didn't, Aaron shouldn't be punished. Again, there are lies and there are lies. Different lies, like different crimes, should be treated differently.
Make no mistake, I think lying is wrong. Have I ever lied, yes! I'm not proud of the fact. I do my best not to lie; I want to be an honest man. So, if a coach or anyone else lies and it has ramification, yes, they should be punished. Nevertheless, if they aren't, it doesn't excuse what Aaron did. Incidentally, all the people that knew his status that allowed him to avoid the rules, should also be punished.
Furthermore, this isn't only about lying, it's about privilege. The rich and stars being given free get out of jail cards, so to speak. If I and most, if not, all common people like me got caught lying on the job, we'd be fired in a heartbeat; oh, he wasn't on the job, he was speaking to the press.
On a YouTube piece I watched, for a few seconds which I turned off after the commentator said whether or not Roger's was vaccinated is nobody's business but his. He is absolutely correct if it's something like diabetes, skin or other cancer, allergies. The list is endless of the diseases and medical conditions that one cannot pass to another. In those cases, it's nobody's business but their own. I think he is one hundred percent wrong when it comes to Covid-19 and other communicable diseases. Maybe ninety-nine percent, if you live on an island by yourself, then I could agree, however, when your part of a group or team you owe it to the others to let them know your status. Imagine someone having HIV-Aids, Ebola, Hepatitis A or B, tuberculosis, . . ., while participating in a contact sport where bleeding occurs or in an environment where there is close proximity and air transmission is likely; others in these situations have an absolute right to know.
In a discussion one proponent of Roger's stated that immunization isn't the same as vaccination so he wasn't lying, just misleading. I checked out the definition of lying: to present false information with the intention of deceiving; a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; . . .. There were several more that fit the situation and anyway you cut it, he lied.
In an attempt to justify his remarks, Rogers said, "They told me that immunized meant you were immune, that is, protected against a disease"; immunization is usually by inoculation, i.e., vaccinated. All of this is irrelevant, he lied. He answered "Yeah," to the question and added to be misleading, "I'm immunized," which is also a lie. He didn't receive the vaccine nor did he receive any approved treatment that would be considered immunization for Covid-19. He knew and everyone knew, the question was about Covid-19 vaccination, not any other past vaccination/immunizations. He obviously wasn't immune to Covid-19 because he got the disease. For me personally, I couldn't care less about whether he got the vaccine or not, that's his choice. What bothers me is he lied and believed he was above the rules that all other non-vaccinated players have to abide by. Some people say he was just being misleading; wrong, bottom line he lied and he is a liar. You might check the definition of lie on the webpage of The Free Dictionary with respect to telling the truth and not a position one can get into.
Something that needs to be said about "Fake News," is that's it, the "Fake News," which in most cases isn't fake. We should be thankful; it helps keep this country free. Yes, sometimes it's skewed, but in most cases, it's rooted in truth. I'm not talking about commentary but rather when an item is stated as having happened.
I ask one of the people in a discussion if he had children. He said yes. I asked him how he would feel if his child was taken away from him, like it was done to illegal aliens at our border. Before he answered one of the others stated, Trump was just continuing the program Obama started and it was Obama that built the cages. I couldn't dispute that because I just didn't know. However, I think I said it didn't matter who started it, it was, in my opinion, inhumane. Both presidents were wrong. And I further said that because someone else does something it doesn't justify another person doing it. I equate this form of argument to a twelve year old's defense. The point is that they're using this to justify a wrong deed.
Well, when I got home, I checked it out, that is, did the Obama administration start separating children from their parents and did his administration build the cages. Turns out that the Obama administration did in fact build the cages, however, they built them because "Unaccompanied" children, under the age of eighteen were crossing the border in large waves. It appears they were told that they wouldn't be sent back. I'm in no way attempting to justify the cages; I don't know what else they could have done, maybe built a tent city or brought in mobile home units. In any case the Obama administration did not separate kids from their parents. The separation of kids from their parents started in 2018 under the order of the president. Personally, it's appalling to me that anyone can accept that taking a child from a parent, even babies, as being all right. Not only did they separate them, but they also failed to collect the information needed to reunite them. At this writing, November 11, 2021, only a small percentage of those separated have been reunited. According to an NBC (fake news) report stated that the white house said over 2100 children still remain separated. Pretty tragic!
Somehow the conversation came around to Afghanistan and Biden's efforts. His administration probably could have done a better job. What those opposed to Biden, fail to accept is that the Trump administration essentially surrendered to the Taliban and promised to have our troops out by May. The deal - secured by Donald Trump and signed in Doha, Qatar, in February 2020 - committed to the withdrawal of US and allied (including British) troops from Afghanistan by May 2021. Why didn't he set the date prior to the election or his leaving office? I just wonder? It's a moot issue for me now. One of the discussion participant said Trump would have attack because of what happen during the withdrawal. Yeah right. When the US took out an Iranian general plotting with terrorist, that was likely planning attacks against the US, and the Iranians retaliated by attacking a US base with high powered rockets which injured over one hundred service men. Where was the retaliation. Trump said no one was hurt, it was all superficial, he didn't use the word superficial, just implied it. You can listen to what he said, it's available in living color on the internet.
Oh yeah, I've got to say, when I was asked a question by one of the people, I didn't have the answer to, so I took out my phone and asked Google the question, he gave me the look, that's your source. I stopped. He did ask me earlier what my sources were, implying I'm likely going to the wrong places. I know that conservative think CNN, USA Today, BBC, the NY Times, Washington Post, and a myriad of others sources are fake. So, I reasoned why waste my time telling him when he believes these sources are totally fake. I wasn't quick enough to say there are numerous reputable sources, the internet is like a library, you choose the book or article. I should have said, yes, the internet has lots of trash as does TV, however there are many reliable sources.
Blatant lies:
In an anti-Biden campaign advertisement, they used the following statement made by Biden. "I'm going to tax everyone." Yes, Biden said that but it was taken out of context and intended to mislead, that's a lie. What Biden actually said was, "I'm going to tax everyone that makes over four-hundred-thousand." Big difference.
One of my fellow 'female' Fleet Reserve members told me that Kamala Harris confessed to being a prostitute. I asked, "Did you actually hear her say that?" She said yes, it was on a video. She further went on to explain that Kamala did it to get it out in the open. My thoughts were WOW. So, I ask if she could show me the video. To which she said the Democrats have buried it. I drop the subject at that point. Again, when I got home, I checked it out. Nowhere, including the most conservative sources, had any information or claims that it was true. The only item I found was that someone, wrote an article that Kamala had dated the ex-mayor of San Francisco and called her a whore because she was much younger than him. One more note, no matter how dumb you may think Biden is he would not have allowed Kamala to be his Vice President had she said that. And furthermore, the Trump campaign would have plastered it all over the place. I can just imagine their advertisements: "Do you really want an ex-hooker to be your Vice President." Followed by the video of her confessing. Really!
Although I wasn't a part of this conversation, furthermore, neither was the recipient, I couldn't possibly avoid hearing it. I was sitting next to another club member and this other guy, standing in the doorway, maybe ten to fifteen feet away, on the way out, said, "I got the vaccine and then I got Covid. I took Ivermectin and got better." Then he went on to say that the drug industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the drug off the market. Not finish yet, he told the guy that there was a region in India where people were dying by the thousands daily. They started to give the people Ivermectin and the death rate was now zero. At home, I checked and low and behold there was no such region in India and from what I could gather, you could probably get Ivermectin at a local feed store. It's a medicine for deworming livestock and when prescribe for people it serves the same purpose, that is, anti-parasitic. The sorry part of this is the guy believed what he was saying.
In more places than one, people claimed a person dying, say in a motorcycle accident would be attributed to Covid-19 to raise the number. The statements were made during the Trump administration when he was saying it's a hoax and that it would go away after the election; his words (both are lies and are all available) and he didn't want the numbers to be high. The point is, was the government, Trump's government going against him. Furthermore, they would say that doctors got paid, i.e., by the government to put the cause of death on the certificate as Covid-19 for which they were paid. A few said that doctors were threatened with loss of license if they didn't. First off nobody gets paid to fill out a death certificate. Secondly, lying on a death certificate is a felony and a doctor is subject to fine, imprisonment, and possible loss of license. Then they would go on to say that hospitals made around thirty-three thousand for Covid-19 patients. That's true. However, let's put things in perspective. The amount varied. Covid patients that had to be put on ventilators cost more than those just occupying a bed. The government pays for Medicare patients and the process is handle through a civilian company. All Medicare billing must be substantiated by tests and other proof of service, regardless of the patients illness. If a hospital or doctor really wanted to cheat, they'd fake a heart transplant which runs around a million and a half. That's about forty Covid-19 cases. The rest of the people are covered by insurance, which sure as hell would come down on a hospital and doctors if they were falsifying information.
Another one: More people have died, since Biden took office than during Trump's time, with respect to Covid. Not true as of November 3, 2021, a total of 747,970 COVID-19 deaths. When Biden took office the death toll had reach 400,000. The main difference is, that Biden is attempting to do something, while Trump's approach was to ignore it. At least Biden is making the vaccine as available as possible and although not fully supported has taken measures to reduce risk. One more point on this subject. The death rate was climbing at the end of Trump's term and it started to decline when Biden got into office. Addendum: As of February 1, 2022 the death toll is now at 886,000 and still climbing. So the statement that more people have died since Biden took office is now true. However, let's put things in prospective. Neither Trump nor Biden can directly affect who gets the disease; all they can do is attempt to set up barriers that might prevent its spread, such as masking and making vaccines available -- they don't have a magic wand.
The vaccine was developed too quickly, less than a year. Check the facts, these companies had been working on them for close to or more than ten years when the middle-east SARs epidemic happen. It wasn't warp speed that led to the quick development of it, it was the companies that knew there was a lot of money to be made and each wanted to be the first, so they could get the biggest cut of the pie.
I won't even go into the election claims.
One of the guys said that fifty percent of people were against Obamacare. According to KFF org polling; as of Dec 2020, 53 percent are in favor, 34 percent are against, and 13 percent are not sure. Roughly 79 percent do not want the pre-existing condition to be overturned. The 79 percent included 66 percent of republicans polled. Like so many others, he just pulled a number out of the air. While it's not germane to the lie, basically he was saying that his fifty percent was more important than the other fifty percent. In other words, they were right the others were wrong. Pretty egotistical! Funny, I don't know enough about Obamacare to defend or disapprove of it. I just don't know, but I'm for healthcare. I need to ask, exactly what they have against it. My guess it will be some bogus things like it cost too much.
It's important to me that I reiterate that people in general do not want to know when they're wrong. I'm not speaking of opinions; I'm speaking of reasonable facts. I think that the biggest difference between me and others, I seek out the correct answer, not who's right. I found the nearly all people, subjective observation of the people I've dealt with, just didn't care if they might be wrong.
From all the conversations I have had, and some in which I was a listening participant, not to be confused with eavesdropping, I believe that the big difference between me and others, is not our position or political stance, but rather our willingness to seek the truth. When I'm face with information that I don't know if it is correct, yet I suspect it might be or with information I have no knowledge of, I check it out. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I learn; actually, I learn in all cases. I believe that not a single person, I've discussed things with has ever checks it out. I've concluded that people just don't want to know they're wrong, about anything. I do. I want to know what's right, more than I want to know who's right. Check out 'You Can't Handle the Truth!', where I give one example. I've tested this over and over and over . . . and have yet to meet someone that actually wanted to know what's right. Oh, this is not just about me presenting something, I've seen it in three, four, and more way conversations. In areas I'm not knowledgeable, which is many, I just listen, ask questions, and learn. In these conversations there are disagreements. I've never been privy to someone later on telling the other person they were correct. I don't remember when anyone has ever come up to me later and told me my information was correct, or for that matter, I told you so. The point is they just don't check anything out to determine what is correct.
One more point that separates people in general, that is their value system. For me, good values are: honesty, of which truthfulness is a part, integrity, being ethical, being kind, respecting others, courage, and most importantly, a sense of humor. There are others similar values. So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that I value people based on the aforementioned qualities, not on their notoriety, athletic ability, acting skill, artistical skill, popularity, how friendly they are, political association, or other similar things they are admired for. Before proceeding let me say, people make mistakes. I have seen too often one of these personalities do something like being unethical, which includes lying, stealing, cheating, and so on. Now you're getting bored and wondering where the hell is he going with this. Okay, you deserve an answer if you've gotten this far.
At the start of World War II, a majority of movie stars and professional athletes chose to enlist. One particular actor decided not to enlist because his career was more important and he would enhance his chances to become a star, because his competition was away fighting the war. In a bio it was indicated that he was also able to avoid the draft, it was not a physical issue. As a serviceman of twenty-two years, I like to think I served for more than just the retirement. Regardless, I reenlisted during the Vietnam War. I don't think it was noble, I was just doing my duty. At the time, I'd likely not see combat because there was little action at sea, although I could have been ordered to in-country duty. I would also like to think that if I were of age at the beginning of World War II I would have enlisted. I did enlist toward the end of the Korean War when I was sixteen. So, I have no respect for the actor and I will not watch any of his movies, particularly those where he plays a war time hero. When I first wrote this I believed that "He had started a cancer foundation, because he became a cancer survivor," however, I have since found out that it was actually his family that started it to honor him. He has never acknowledged or apologized for his action, i.e., not enlisting and avoiding the military. It disappoints me that people look at him as some kind of hero, when in reality he's hasn't done anything heroic. Don't misunderstand me, people make mistakes, admit them, sometimes they are punished, and become good citizens. For example, Tim Allen was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. He said it was a mistake and changed his life. I have respect for him. He served his sentence and became a productive citizen. He, to the best of my knowledge, never tried to excuse it.
Today, Nov 21, 2021, I read the title of a book, "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck." My initial thought was, wow, if I could only do that, that is, not care. Then I realized if I didn't, I'd just be a hollow shell. Caring gives us purpose. I considered suggesting changing the title to The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck About What Others Think or Do," but others do effect our lives, not always directly.
Proverb:
When arguing with a fool,
first make sure
the other person isn't
doing the same thing.
Socialism versus Capitalism versus Social Programs
September 20, 2020
Again, for the sake of understanding, let's start by establishing a common point of view. This is how I'm using the following:
Socialism: so·cial·ism, noun, a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Per Google.
Capitalism: cap·i·tal·ism, noun, an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Per Google.
Social Program: A program provided by the government, such as public grade and high schools, police and fire, military, infrastructure, and other programs deemed for the common good. My definition.
To start: I believe NOBODY, that is, American citizens, wants socialism as a form of government and EVERYONE wants capitalism within a democracy form of government.
What many people want are social programs like higher education, which includes, specialty schools, such as, medical or dental tech, building trades, cosmetology, . . ., and healthcare. None of the aforementioned programs would be a direct benefit to me, I'm past the age where advanced training would be useful for me and I have healthcare, which I paid for and earned. However, I'm for these programs. I see them as an investment in our society and future, albeit not long for me.
First lets discuss higher education. Studies have shown that college and specialty school graduates earn more and they pay more taxes. Furthermore, people that make more spend more, which means more work for others. I think it's a win-win. Another benefit is if people are working they don't need to commit crimes to survive. Wouldn't it be better to train people rather than having to put them in jail, which cost more than it would to educate them; think about that. Recently a university study revealed that there is a correlation between education and violent crime, the better educated are markedly less likely to commit a violent crime.
How about healthcare. I think I can safely say that healthy people can work, and sick people can't and shouldn't work; they frequently present a hazard to others. In addition, sick people are a burden to society if they don't have insurance. I'm sorry, but a society that says, so what, is truly lacking in humanity. Whether one likes it or not, these people cost the taxpayer money. Again, the money invested, and I do mean invested, in keeping our society healthy has payback, the same as advanced education does. Healthy people work, pay taxes, spend more, which benefits all of us.
Just a few of the benefits from the above programs:
They pay more taxes.
They spend more, which requires more service and work. And it leads to more jobs and more taxes.
Less likely to commit crimes.
They're not a burden on society.
Addendum: Recently, I was watching a news program where a reporter asked a group of farmers about what Trump had done for them; they were diehard republicans and they were strongly anti-socialists. It struck me as funny when they said that Trump supported their subsidies. What strikes me funny is how if a social program that benefit someone, like farmer subsidies, is okay; good socialism. However, if the government helps people from dying, it's bad socialism. Makes me wonder? Oh, and the subsidies indirectly pay for the farmers' healthcare.
Another Addendum: A while back a topic of discussion was pro-life. A Jesuit Catholic priest stated, "Pro-life is more than just about anti-abortion. View Father James Martin's YouTube video. It's about keeping people alive and supporting healthcare." I personally would add, "You can't claim you're pro-life if you don't care about the quality of the air people breathe or the water they drink, which by the way includes all of us."
Another Perspective On Colin Kaepernick Taking A Knee.
September 15, 2020
First, I want to state that I believe I'm a good person, that is I've worked hard, obey the law, care about people, care about the environment, and support various organizations that want to improve life. I believe that everyone should have equal opportunity in all areas and get equal treatment under the law. I also believe there is considerable police (and political) brutality, coercion, and bullying. For the most part, police are good, we just need to get rid of the so called, bad apples. I would also agree that there is substantial race, religion, and sexual bias. It is not my intention to defend any form of bias.
I spent 22 years in the service. I was one of the lucky ones that came home. My risk was small because my duty was aboard ships. The wars being fought during my service were on land.
I'm going to make two statements I think most would agree with.
One: "Lawful" peaceful protesting is the right of the people and is a good thing.
Two: Violent and destructive protesting is wrong and against the law.
If you don't agree you should stop here and exit this page.
Some protesting actually fits between the two. For example, peaceful protestors blocking traffic on a highway, while not violent, it is disruptive to others and may in fact cause anger and/or harm, not to say it's also against the law. They may stop a pregnant woman on the way to a hospital, an ambulance with a heart attack patient, someone on their way to a job interview, the list is endless. And as stated, it is against the law. I know it can be argued that we need to make people aware. Inconsiderate protesting isn't effective, for what I think are obvious reasons and likely leads to division rather than unity. Enough said.
I would ask you, "If a person slaps or insults you and then shouts at you that you should do something in support of their cause." How would you really respond. Even if it were right, would you want to do it. Like blocking the highway, I'm attempting to make a point there are many ways to do things, some better than others. If you want people to support you, don't start by offending them and then expect them to. My point is that there are good ways and bad ways, even if no laws are being broken.
On several shows there was a clear support for Colin Kaepernick's taking a knee to protest the racism and police brutality which is so prevalent throughout our country. I agree it needs to be stopped.
What the supporters fail to recognize is our "Flag" represents the values of what this country was founded on, not the way it is. Values that all men and women are created equal, except biologically between men and women, which is a good thing. I'm sorry to admit I was a chauvinistic pig, until my daughter was born and then my view changed. My values over the years, many years, have changed and I want to believe for the better.
Like Michael Douglas states in the movie "The American President," "Show me the man that would defend the rights of a person, that which he would spend a lifetime opposing. That's what America is about." Or words to that effect. I would defend Kaepernick's right to take a knee in protest during the national anthem. Yet, I find it abhorrent because I served to protect, "Our Country's Values," namely those in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, not the injustices that abound throughout our land. Many a person has died to protect what our country stands for. The flag is a symbol of those values. What all the supporters of Kaepernick taking a knee, fail to understand, is that he slapped those that sacrificed their lives, their families, and those of us that served our country and the values we believe in, in the face.
Furthermore and unfortunately, what he did had an overall negative effect; we're still talking about taking a knee and his right to do so, not what he was protesting. Everyone in the military fraternal organization I belong to resented it. None disagree that it was his right to do it or what he was protesting. They just felt, he slapped us in the face. I don't know if this is true but I've been informed the NFL ratings went down. What he did was something, right or wrong, that divided people rather than unifying us.
If he wanted to do something, he should have met with teammates, formed an organization, and put his money where his mouth is. Recently NBA players, and other sports figures, walked out, no one was offended and they made their point. Again, these wealthy athletes should put up or shut up. Just protesting is not enough, they need to get out there and do something. I honor those athletes and celebrities that take a stand and get involve. To quote the old cliché, "Action speaks louder than words."
You Can't Handle the Truth!
June 29, 2020
Over the years, I have found that people don't want to know they're wrong—regardless if it's important or it just doesn't matter. A quick example: I told a friend I had read, in a naval engineering text, about a principle related to steam turbine blades. He told me I must have read it wrong and that it was impossible. When I got home, I looked it up again, found I read it correctly. I'm not saying everything we read is correct; in fact, it scares me just how much is wrong, inaccurate, and pure BS. Anyway, it's not about the correctness of what was written but rather that it was written in a well-respected naval text. I told my friend that I rechecked and if he wanted to read it for himself, I would show it to him, the next time he came; I added, all he had to do was ask. He said, "I'd like that. Okay." He never asked. I have repeated this many times since, of course with different subject matter, and no one has ever taken me up on it.
With today's technology, many opposing views can be resolved quickly with smart phones. Now, when I have an opposing view and it can't be resolved on the spot, I will research it. If I'm wrong, I will go back, apologize, and tell the person they're right. If I'm right, I just keep it to myself. What I'm saying is, I want to know what's right, not who's right. One small note, I'm referring to things that are not opinions or faith based, like politics and religion; I'm referring to things that have a definitive answer.
Leo Tolstoy said it best:
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious if it be such that as it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they had proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into their lives.
Tolstoy
Things that make me want to, "&GB#&*!@+&%$#."
June 29, 2020
Parents know what's best for their children:
First, I want to distinguish between "Want and Know." Wanting is desiring that your child achieves everything they are capable of and have a successful and happy life. Knowing is the idea that you know what will make them happy, successful, and healthy; of course, I'm assuming one wants their child to be happy, successful, and healthy. I've always wanted what was best for my children, and what that was I haven't a clue. That's not the same as knowing. I made plenty of mistakes thinking I knew what was best. It may not seem like I was wrong, when I pressured my kids to strive for college acceptance. I've learned that not all kids a college bound, nor do they want to go. Yes, a parent should encourage their child to do their absolute best and give the support they need. I'm saying, had I realized one of my kids had no desire to go to college, which to me was unfortunate, I would have supported what he wanted. I didn't know what he wanted at the time and that was my failing; I should have talk to him.
People that use bad examples done by others to justify something they've done or another person they support did:
It's the kid's argument, e.g., "Timmy's mom lets him stay up later and doesn't rag on him for getting grades, 'D's or 'F's, so why can't I stay up later and get grades like Timmy?" I would hope that this appears to you as very childish and you would think, perhaps hope, by the time a person were in their twenties, they would stop using this type of rationalizing. A crime is a crime is a crime. It doesn't matter how many people did it before, and maybe got away with it, it's still a crime.
Don't try to convince me that it's okay to have been a draft dodger because others were draft dodgers. I don't care if you want to consider the individual some sort of hero, just don't tell me what he or she did was okay because someone else did it, regardless of who that someone else is. Fortunately for society, there are more people that do the right thing.
Discussing something rational with an irrational person:
Let me explain, while I was writing my book, I came across a Facebook post that said, "Bras cause cancer." It intrigued me, so I did some research. Without getting into all the details, some studies indicated it was possible. In addition, there were several medical groups and organizations that professed that not wearing a bra was generally good for health in several ways. I would encourage anyone that wears a bra to do the research and speak to a doctor about the possible benefits. Most agreed that if you need to wear a bra, a good support sports bra was the thing to wear. Yes, I would agree, it's up to the individual. Whether or not to wear a bra is not the issue I'm talking about. When I happen to say, "I had read that not wearing a bra would prevent sagging." A woman stated, "If I hadn't worn a bra, my breasts would be down to my waist." I dropped the subject, no use starting a discussion, that would likely turn into an argument, that no one would win. When an individual is rooted in a belief, I have found it is impossible to discuss anything with them; they ignore provable facts, reasonable assertions, logic, and they will use fabricated rationale, "like they'd be hanging down to my belly." I guess I'm attempting to say it's like talking to a brick wall, only the wall doesn't call you names.
To Thine Own Self Be True*
*William Shakespeare quote. The following taken from Life's Rules
I have two personal axioms, "Never lie to yourself," and "Take responsibility for your actions."
Axiom One—Never lie to yourself.
I think, in one of William Shakespeare's plays he wrote, "To thy own self be true." Regardless of who said it, it is profoundly true. I know that there are many people that lie and cheat; and they appear to become successful. These people are usually extremely egotistical or sociopathic. They are the only ones that matter—to themselves. But for most of us that really care about others, and believe that lying and cheating is wrong, then this rule should be the number one to follow.
Axiom Two—Take responsibility for your actions. Note: It's been pointed out that to do this, one needs to do axiom one..
While I was working for a school district, I co-facilitated a seminar: "The Seven Habits of Effective People." "Be Proactive" was the first habit. I have come to the conclusion that being Proactive is the basic foundation of who we are. The stronger the foundation, the stronger the structure. When faced with a situation requiring action, there are three responses: Reactive, Proactive, and In-active.
Scenario 1: You are in a small boat and you notice that it is beginning to leak.
Reactive: You jump overboard and start swimming to shore. You also forgot your life jacket.
Proactive: You evaluate the leak and put your hand or something else, like a rag, over it to stop or minimize it while you see if there is anything available to make a temporary fix. You're already wearing your life jacket.
In-active: You just sit there, while the boat is sinking, and wait to see what's going to happen.
Scenario 2: Someone begins to yell at you.
Reactive: You yell back as loud as you can and threaten to punch them.
Proactive: You remain calm. Determine what the person is saying. After you have determined what the problem is you respond calmly and do what you can to abate the problem.
In-active: You just remain how you are and look off into space, while hoping they will go away.
In summary -- reactive people act without thinking, proactive people take time to evaluate and respond, and in-active people do nothing.
If there were only two rules to follow, they would be, "Never lie to yourself" and "Take responsibility for your actions."
Perception
(2020)
Along time ago I concluded that a person's perception is their reality. With that in mind, I'll start. I was at my evening watering hole, enjoying my whine, I mean wine, when I got into a friendly discussion with another patron. I was asked if I were upset with them from the last time we talked; they had gotten the impression that I was. I said, "No. I don't have any idea why you would think I was." The impression was based on my sitting on the furthest side of the horseshoe bar and it appeared I was avoiding them. We talked a while longer and I was also informed that I gave the impression that I didn't want to talk to others. I asked why they thought that. It was pointed out that I often sat on the other side of the bar and I have my earphones in; I sit away from others because I often write, and they didn't know I wasn't listening to anything and that I just kept them on in case I got a call. We talked. I explained my typical behavior and some of my quirks.
When I first started visiting the club, I would sit away from everyone and write. About a month after I started my daily sojourn, one of the regulars came over and asked, "Are you writing a book?"
I didn't take it as him being sarcastic, but rather to be funny. It's typical when someone is writing and you don't know what they're writing about. Courteously, I replied, "Yes, I am."
Not sure I was being truthful he stated, "Really?"
I said, "Seriously, I am. It's a love story about a guy that meets a very wealthy and powerful woman. The title is Victoria." Nodding that he believed me, he then struck up a conversation about basic personal things, like how long have you lived here and other typical, get to know you things.
While I was the Chief Engineer of a hospital, I was accused of being a snob. I asked the person why they thought I was; I don't consider myself a snob. I was told that when I walked past them and they said hello, I ignored them. Fortunately, it was at a group meeting; fortunate because I could explain to everyone at once, instead of one by one. I explained that, I often concentrate so deeply that I'm not aware of the world around me. I told them I'm lucky I don't walk into a wall. Then I apologized and said if I don't say hello, it's because I'm in another world, so to speak. I told them, even if I dislike someone and they say hello, I will respond. In addition, I told them, that on occasion, I'd be a long way off when I realized what was said. When I stopped, the person would be gone and that I wasn't sure it happened. So, now when I meet new people, I explain up front.
Uno Numero
(January 2020)
We were discussing the topic of relationships. My belief is, "If you make the people you care about happy, then you'll be happy." One of the participants said, "You need to look out for 'Uno Numero' first." His view is that if you're happy, then you can make others happy. To some measure I agree. If you're depressed and want to commit suicide, it's hard to make others around you happy. In many of these situations, if the person started thinking about how they were affecting others and what they meant to them, they might just realize their importance. Kirk Douglas is a prime example. Years ago, on the Today Show, he said after he had his stroke, he wanted to die. Then he said, "I began to think of how my dying would affect the people that loved me. I was important to them and that thought lifted me up. So, I stopped thinking about myself and focused on my family. A family I knew loved me. It changed my outlook and I started to deal with my recovery." It was a long time ago that I saw the show, so please excuse me if Kirk's wording wasn't exactly like mine; I'm paraphrasing, as best I can remember.
I know there are times when you attempt to make someone happy and they end up screwing you. For me, and I believe for most people, that have a loving relationship, it doesn't happen often, in fact it's rare. I really cannot think of a single time, when I did something for a loved one that later on treated me in a way that made me regret caring about them. My sister, whom I'm estranged from; that has treated me badly over the years, has not caused me to regret the things I did for her. I sincerely believe, "If you make the people you care about happy, you will be happy." Albeit, in my sister's cases, the moments were short lived. However, I'd like to reiterate, I don't regret them for a moment.
Choice
I'm going to start with choice. When I was noticeably young – many, many years ago, I heard this saying, "Life makes the soft heart grow hard; and it makes the hard heart grow soft." I think it has to do with what we expect and what we get.
I'm motivated to start with choice because I've been dealing with so many people that choose to dwell on the negative, instead of being positive. We all have had bad things happen to us. And we've also had a lot of good things. I've certainly had my share, both good and bad. My worst was losing my love—after 53 plus years. I'm dealing with it in my own way, a very personal way. I won't say it doesn't still hurt, some of life is learning to live with pain. I can't change it. Nobody else needs to know. I choose to focus on things I can do, things that make my life fulfilling—for me it's writing, jogging, and a bit of whining wine in the evening.
The fact is, life isn't fair; if it were, I'd be handsome, younger, rich, smart, and have the ability to please a woman, as would every other male. All females would be beautiful, well built, independently wealthy, and, like they are, smarter than men. But in reality, life isn't unfair either, it's what it is. So, it's our choice on how we choose to live it, and whether or not to be positive or negative.
I'm not going to say I don't ever talk about these things; that is my losses, disappointments, and problems. Sometimes in conversations, I refer to them when I think they're apropos. Normally, I just keep them to myself. In some cases, they were things I couldn't do anything about them. Other times I was the one that was totally responsible for the outcome and they were a mixed bag. What I can say, is that I learned something from each of them. Unfortunately, many people repeat some of the things, because they expect the world to change for them; it usually doesn't.
Here's the choice we have: To be miserable or to live contently, if not happy. I ask myself, literally, ask, "Art, what are you going to do to be happy, or at least, positive?" I've chosen to be positive; and hopefully, be happy at times. I guess I have an advantage over some of the people I've dealt with. My children appear to be concerned about my wellbeing. I can't remember when we had a serious argument. This doesn't mean we agree on everything we just didn't fight over things that really matter. This helps me. I guess we have a mutual respect. I'm proud of my kids. I have two personal things in my life that undoubtably help—running, albeit slow, very slow and writing. I write about almost anything. It's like talking to someone that's totally listening, understands, and doesn't argue or disagree.
I've just started this topic, so I need to think some more on it.
From Deleted Currents Page
It's A Matter of Perspective
October 31, 2013
In 2013 San Diego had the dubious honor of its mayor, Bob Filner, resigning because of sexual harassment allegations, to which he later pleaded guilty to on a couple of them. My little tirade here is not about Filner, his behavior is reprehensible, but rather, about the attitude related to the behavior, expressed by a major official when interviewed.
During the interview, the official gave, on either August 21 or 22, 2013, he stated, words to the effect, that Filner's behavior were of product of his generation—my generation.
For the record Filner's form of behavior was never considered acceptable. Because of the "Good Old Boy Club" mentality, people with money or power were able to get away with this and other reprehensible behaviors. My generation considered Mr. Filner's arrogant and bulling behavior deplorable. It is unfortunate the people in power -- political or private sector -- still get away with much of it. And sadly, in most cases the victims often pay the price.
The point is that these forms of behavior were not considered acceptable by my generation, as well as subsequent generations. I suspect the mistreatment, sexual or bully, has not been considered as acceptable by most civilized societies.
As I age, I find it more-and-more difficult to understand people. I don't know whether they're prudes, ignorant, small minded, stupid or zealots. Parents complained to the Sesame Street producers that Katy Perry's Outfit was to risqué for the program. The dress she was wearing was about the same as a typical figure skater's outfit, except it was perhaps a bit longer. They, the parents, complained that it was inappropriate for children of Sesame Street age.
I'm reminded of the story I heard about an artist that painted nudes. He and his wife were worried what their three year old daughter would think if she saw him painting. The inevitable day came. The young girl burst into his studio while he was working, followed closely behind was his wife. The girl looked at the model from head-to-foot, place her hands on her hips, defiantly, and then turned to her parents. With a scowl on her face she angrily said, "If she can go without shoes, why can't I?"
The point being that young children and toddlers don't see the world as adults do. The fact is they have no concept of sex and what risqué is all about. By the time a child would view the outfit Perry wore as risqué they wouldn't be watching Sesame Street.
It makes one wonder if their child (parents that complained) go to the beach or community swimming pools or their own pool for that matter. Do these parents prevent the children from watching figure skating, gymnastics, the circus, .... I could go on-and-on naming typical events where the participants are minimally dressed and not considered risqué. Maybe we should forbid cheerleading! I think that risqué is in the mind of the observer. I guess what really bothers me is that it seems like even the most innocuous things or words offend someone. I worked at a place where the boss's secretary didn't like the word "gal," so it was forbidden to be used. If parents really are so concerned about what their children see on TV then they should complain about the commercials where kids are behaving badly and the parent is smiling.
I've said enough here but add related comments in my "Parenting" page.
What's the Real Cause?
In the Dear Abby column (February 2010) a woman wrote that she was at a restaurant and observed that parents at one table were, figuratively speaking, force feeding their child. The child was already overweight. She further when on to say, Isn't it the parents' fault that today's children have weight problems.
Abby responded by telling the woman not to judge the parents. It is the types of food eaten and lack of exercise. In essence, she blamed it on the environment.
Well, that's partly true. How and what we eat, coupled with lack of exercise can lead to being overweight. Let me spell it out. Where do you think that children learn and develop their eating and exercise habits?
Over the years I've kind of observed that the weight of children is proportional to their parent(s) -- heavy parents, heavy children. It is not universal as there are exceptions, albeit not too many. I should write "Dear Abby" but I'm just too lazy and really don't care what she says. It's the issue that bothers me. I would put the blame squarely on parents; that's where children learn their eating and exercise habits. I won't say that I was a great example. I guess I was lucky my kids, as was my wife and I, in the recommended weight range for our height. We did a lot of things right by accident. One of them was we were active in sports—tennis and soccer. Our kids were also active in sports, all kinds.
If I were raising children today, I would do the following:
I would "NEVER" use food as a reward or to comfort. Using food as a reward or for comfort is probably, I think, the biggest reason for weight problems. Many of my overweight friends, I do have a few friends, eat when they get upset or stressed. They even say it helps them to relax. I find exercise does it for me and I've met a lot of people that say exercise does it for them.
I would serve healthier foods. Serve more fruits and vegetables. Put a bowl of fruit in a place that is right in front of them and easy to reach, like on the table in front of the TV.
Never force them to finish everything. When they're finished eating let them have the dessert, but limit it to a standard portion, whatever that might be, regardless of how much they've eaten. Don't make the portion bigger or give them more because they've eaten more. In time they will learn what is right for them.
I would encourage them to try everything. This means that I would also have to try everything along with them. Over the years, I began doing this and have since found several foods I thought I hated to be very likable.
I would keep portions of the not so healthy but enjoyable foods limited. I thinks it's okay to visit the fast food places once in a while, but not as a reward. If you are out to an event such as a baseball game, sightseeing, shopping, or traveling, are the times that fast food might be just the ticket.
I would participate and encourage daily exercise, which we did.
Who's to Blame?
I'm back, February 24, 2010. Reference: San Diego Union Tribune, Saturday, January 16, 2010. In the "Smart Living" section was an article. "It's Hard To Lose Weight When Your Spouse Keeps Buying Pizza." The gist of the article was how can I eat right if my spouse doesn't. If the writer wasn't married, then it would have been her mother, father, siblings, friends, roommate, the environment ....
The devil made me do it. It's not my fault, (you fill in the blank) made me do it. The point is, if I fail, it's not my fault. The article goes on to tell you how you can manipulate those you would blame for your failure into making them make you do it.
I get so pissed off and frustrated when people want to blame their actions on others.
While I was growing up, (some might say I never grew up) in the 1940s and 1950s, I seem to remember adults stressing, over and over again, that you need to take responsibility for your actions. Along came the 1960s and 1970s when psychiatry and sociology espoused that you are the way you are because the people you grew up with and your environment made you that way. It didn't matter that thousands of people in similar situations grew up differently; most of which became relatively normal.
If I were to respond to the article writer, I would say, "Sure it helps when you are supported or you can partner with someone when you strive to accomplish a goal. However, in the end you must take responsibility and, if necessary, do it on your own. The only person you can really blame for your failure is yourself.
Who Do They Think They're Punishing?
Wow. it's been a long time. September 3, 2008 -- The major headline in today's paper read, "Feds Fine Pfizer $2.3 billion." Is that supposed to make us happy. Just who are they punishing. For certain it's not the high rollers of the company or the stockholders. It's you and me. It's the customer that will pay the bill. I regret that this little outburst is like a grain of sand that no one will see. I do vote against all incumbents, unless the challenger appears to be a bigger crook or moron.
What is really needed are laws that punish the people making the decisions. I'm not talking about bad decisions; I'm talking about the illegal ones. When they, The Feds or other government entities, fine a company, it's because of wrongdoing by company personnel; usually upper management. I also wonder why nobody in the media circus does anything. I guess it's easier to go along with the way things are. After all who owns the media? Large corporations and they surely don't want to make themselves libel.
Sometimes Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction
November 22, 2008 -- On last night's TV news, a story was reported (it was also in the local newspaper this morning) that the Nebraska Legislator enacted a Safe Haven law. The Safe Haven law is intended to permit a parent to drop off a newborn at locations, like hospitals, fire stations, police stations, with no questions asked. Almost immediately they had to amend the law to stipulate a maximum babies age of 30 days. Because they initially failed to stipulate the age of the child that could be dropped off, some 35 children, most in the age group, 10 through 17 were dropped off.
Food for thought: It would appear that babies, infant, and small children are easier to take care of and deal with than an adolescent.
What About the Truth
November 3, 2008 -- In California there is a proposition related to marriage. This topic is related to "truth" and not the subject of the proposition. So, don't look at the issue. One side says that the subject of gay marriage is not taught in school. It was made by the Superintendent of California Schools. The other side says it has been and will be taught in school and that parents have no say. They state that a first grade class was taken to a gay marriage and that parents had no say. I thought that all field trips, regardless of what they were for, had to have parental approval. In some ways they are like husband and wife, in divorce court, each saying the other is lying.
Based on what I've just stated (if you've seen or view the ads, you can confirm) one of the sides is lying. My thoughts are that this is appalling. We have laws that require truth in advertising, yet nothing is done when it comes to political ads. Even if the truthful side were to sue the lying side, with the current court system, the election would be long past before anything were done.
I guess what disappoints me most is that, it seems, that most people really don't care that they are being lied to and we've come to accept it.
While I'm speaking about the truth. PETA sued the state over false advertising that "California cows were happy." The court ruled that the state was "NOT" subject to the truth in advertising law. What bothers me it that the government is sanctioned to lie to us. We should be up-in-arms. If I were half the person I'd like to be and had the resources, I would do more than just write this. I guess I'm satisfied to live the remainder of my existence, acquiescent to the current status. It's the younger generation that needs to get involved.
- 