Hatred of People is an abhorrent display of the worst of human nature

 Do you "hate" anyone?

Why?

My Dad once, when I was discussing what my benefits would be if I tried to do a particular thing, responded that I should never consider "what I would make or accomplish" as a first question.  "What do you mean?" was my response.  He said, "first, ask what is the cost or the effort needed, then ask if you have the time, effort or the money and if you can afford to lose the time, effort or money.  If the answer is that you can't, then don't bother with the consideration of what you might gain...you can't afford it."

If one considers his or her "hates" it is likely that the "why" has very little to do with the soul or essence of the person, but is about fear of the effect on the hater of the beliefs or the actions of the person they claim to hate.  And the basis of the fear is immaterial; it can be behavior (speeding down your road) or politics (favoring policies you find threatening) or something else.

Hatred also reveals a mind out of control, under the influence of the "flight or fight" emotional response that drowns all trace of logic and inevitably leads to unfortunate consequences.

All homo sapiens are of "mixed" instincts and behaviors.  The worst of criminals or psychopaths has performed some (perhaps singular) act of kindness or goodness, while even those among us who we consider "saint-like" or "good" has some secret (again, perhaps merely a singular) act that is sinful or abhorrent.  All or nothing appellations are simply doomed to be inaccurate...and inaccuracy of judgement leads to bad decisions and unwanted consequences.

Also...hatred, when exhibited, demeans the hater and demeans and brings disrespect on his or her beliefs or arguments.  It is not attractive. And it is never productive.

Perhaps the next time you think, or say, "I hate him (or her)," it would be well to pause and consider what is causing you to be fearful or threatened.  Is it an actual act by the person?  Is it something they believe, or something or some action that they support?  Because that same person may also be in favor of any number of things that you also favor and see value in...if you hate the person, you are hating those things too.  That is illogical and flawed reasoning, so it would be well to think it through.

Hatred displaces logic and loses arguments on the merits.  When someone with whom we are arguing starts calling you names or resorts to swearing, that person has lost the argument and fear of that has directed him or her to insults rather than reason.  Hatred is just an extreme extension of the same.

Our lives on this earth are short enough.  Do any of us really have enough time to waste on "hating?"  Frankly, I pity those that "hate" and just refuse to spend time listening to or spending time with them. Many can argue, disagree, discuss and even if unconvinced can still respect each other and be civil...perhaps even be friends...even while honoring differences in our lives and minds, and those are the people I want to be around.  How about you?

Our Educational System is failing...but THIS is ridiculous!

We continue to allow our Educational System in America to deteriorate.  Objective evaluations show performance to continue to fall when compared to what students in other countries are achieving.  We literally do nothing about it...except to point fingers at people and factors other than ourselves.

The reality is constantly growing more apparent.  High School Diplomas no longer guarantee that holding one means that you can do basic math, spell most words correctly and recognize when you have to check a dictionary (do any young people even have one anymore, much less know what one is?), have the ability to write a coherent sentence or note with decent handwriting so that it can be read a half hour later?  High School Graduates no longer even seem to have had instilled a sense of discipline or the ability to concentrate on any task (other than "texting" others) for more than 45 seconds at a time;  they interact face to face badly, seemingly unable to communicate without using an electronic device.  They have not been taught the rudiments of "problem solving" or civilly discussing different sides of any given subject.

This results in Colleges and Universities being inundated by applicants that several decades ago would have been deemed insufficiently prepared to benefit from exposure to "higher" education and been denied admittance.  And parents would have recognized how inappropriately prepared such young people were and realized that to fund such would be a waste of money.  Yet...Colleges and Universities are well attended.  Why?

Our (Your) government has made loans easily available.  To the immature person, this seems like "free" money, since repayment is not until after graduation which fells like eons away to the new applicant.  These loans don't require a well defined "purpose" or "motivation" for so-called advance studies.  A young adult can "park" themselves in a University or College for 4 years or more...and the institution they attend welcomes the government money that enables them to fund all sorts of courses in what is a largely non-competitive environment for the faculty.  The presence of young people so ill prepared for what used to be the rigors of acquiring a University education required (and apparently continues to require) a down-grading of subject matter and grading standards.  Such a waste of time and money is deplorable.  But it is worse than that.  No longer is debate, challenge, or problem solving allowed, much less valued, in many Colleges and Universities.  News Flash: the real world doesn't have "safe spaces."

Why, you ask, this diatribe now?

When President Trump announced that he was going to discontinue DACA as a Presidential Executive Order, young people around the country walked out of classes, out of work and congregated to declare such action as being "cruel" and "hurtful" and even un-Constitutional.  AND they were joined by many of our elected Public Officials.   Apparently, our diminished educational system's deficiencies has already percolated to those holding public office!

How can I suggest such a thing?

The DACA program is only by means of a Presidential Executive Order.  It is NOT a law.  It is subject to the personal whims of whatever individual holds the office of President of the United States.  This makes it a political football with no real benefit to those it alleges to help...a very uncertain thing that leaves some level of fear in the minds and hearts of those who are subject to it.

By demanding that Congress act to codify DACA so that it becomes the law of the land, President Trump is working to make the benefits certain and sure, which would depoliticize the program, removing it from use to fear-monger those who are subject to the current vagaries of politics.

The President has given Congress 6 months to get a law drawn up and to present it to him for his signature...a signature that he has stated he would provide.  And he has further indicated that if there is some proven need for additional time to get this done, he is prepared to re-visit the matter.

Anyone with a REAL education, prepared to read, ask questions, research would have almost instantly realized that for those affected, this was a cause to demonstrate THANKS...not fear.  The fact that not one group realized the truth just emphasized how our refusal to redesign and rededicate our Educational System to serious education has resulted in what can only be described as a nation of indoctrinated idiots, with apparently no ability to think and evaluate correctly.

It is impossible to not think that this is the ultimate proof that our educational system is no longer remotely involved with educating.  It has failed miserably.

"Mob" Rule apparently now acceptable in America

Life in America today suddenly seems like a combination of a seriously illogical dream and being on the trip that Alice took to "Wonderland."  It appears as if someone set off a device that has deprived almost everyone of any common sense or logic.

Dealing with the relatively new phenomenon of "Terrorism" is bad enough; the senseless killing of innocent individuals by Muslim Extremists, Mentally Ill individuals and a couple of Far-Right Fanatics is an unfortunate fact of life today.  All violence or any sort, whether against persons or property, is to be condemned and punished no matter who the perpetrator.

But by what logic does this sudden desire to sanitize and/or revise History become a populist movement, seemingly endorsed by the Media, the Democrat Party (and its members) and the Republican Party (and its members)?  Has the entire country become so narcissistically enthralled by a desire to "attack" something that such action a denial of historical truth will erase anything or improve life in America in 2017 for anyone?  If this was the 1850's in our West, tomorrow the mob would wake up feeling guilty and avoiding looking each other in the eye out of embarrassment and guilt.

Our President condemns the violence in Virginia by all who took part in that violence, and goes on to condemn the attitudes of Racism as being "wrong" and "unacceptable" but the Media, the Democrat and Republican elected officials and anyone on the ideological Left insists on misinterpreting his comments as equating the beliefs of the Racists with the beliefs of those who declare that Racism is wrong.  Instead of seeing the statement(s) as the plea and demand for non-violence by both sides, promising punishment for those who act violently, as the call for sanity that it clearly is, they incorrectly label his comments in an attempt to profit politically.

Seems as if there is a strong logical basis for suggesting that all of America...or, at least the media and the political establishment (all sides)...should properly be undergoing treatment in a mental hospital.

The only speech allowed these days seems to be Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Liberal and Fascist.  All others are shouted down or prevented from speaking without being denigrated and insulted with the aid of the media.  What is going on today is the over-turning of the Constitutional guarantee of "Free Speech."

For those who respond that the "speech" being quashed is "bad" speech, they might consider that if a group that disagrees with that definition gains power, the reversal will make it impossible for them to speak at all.  The court held that the church that demonstrated at military funerals with a message that clearly was hurtful to the families involved had a Constitutional right to so demonstrate.  There was emotional hurt but no violence.

How much more effective would it have been if the legal march in Virginia (they had a permit, after all) had simply been allowed to take place...BUT NO ONE ATTENDED OR REPORTED ON IT?  After all, they were after publicity.  Any intelligent person or group would have won the day by simply ignoring the matter...it is a fringe group with no significant support and that would have been clear is all had simply stayed away.  But unfortunately today's attitude is that anyone with whom you disagree must be shouted down and "prevented" from saying anything.  Why?

Politicians say a lot of things that I don't like.  But they get to say them anyway.  News reports are very often wrong on facts or incomplete and slanted...but I don't get to shut them down.  But I don't want to shut them down.  If I feel strongly enough about a matter, I can write letters, make calls, ask questions and made suggestions.  But the actions of the last week suggest that my right to do so will not exist for long, because this feels like an attack on our very rights under the Constitution.

When History is being sanitized revised, and re-written...and mob rule replaces our Constitutional guarantees, we are in very big trouble.

Will Mueller turn out to be our modern day Torquemada?

The voters of the United States of America, under the impression that they had the right, elected Donald Trump to be President of the country.  He did not come from a long line of politicians.  He was not a politician.  He was not active in any political activities, other than as they affected his businesses, until disgust with politics motivated him to run for President, which led to his subsequent election.  Evidently a lot of people agreed with him.

The political establishment was neither amused or content; they were horrified..  For politicians, the "game" of politics takes on the aura of religion; it is a way of life and they believe that being "called" to be a politician establishes a common bond that transcends ideological differences.  They become "family."  So, while they can fight between themselves, when an outsider appears and disagrees with their family "habits" of behavior and activity, they stop fighting and combine to defeat the newcomer.

Ah...but how to accomplish this?

The "people" have spoken.  Clearly a multiple pronged attack is clearly in order.  First, mount a campaign of both falsehoods and half-truths that, if pursued constantly and loudly, will cause a diminution of President Trump's support. Secondly, do all that is possible to prevent any accomplishments reach the eyes and ears of the public, hoping that the public will conclude that no Presidential promises are being kept or being effective.  Third, work across ideological boundaries (but cautiously, so the public does not become aware) to defeat bills that would enable actions desired by President Trump.

However, there is a chance that these efforts will not be enough to defeat President Trump's support or prevent his accomplishing some of his declared goals.  What more can be done?

It is unclear who actually triggered the concept (one suspects that all would take credit if asked "off the record"), but the appointment of a "Special Prosecutor" took place.  Usually, this is in response to evidence that a crime has been committed and the goal is document it and determine the responsible party(ies) to be sent to prison...as in "Watergate."

Curiously, after more than 9 months there is no evidence of a crime.  With the porous nature our nation's capitol, if there were such evidence it is inconceivable that it would not by now have been leaked to press corp proven ravenously anxious to publicize any illegal act by President Trump or his supporters. Yet...we have a Special Prosecutor.  Not only do we have one, but he is one ideologically oriented to the Democrat party which is the lead ideological group seeking President Trump's removal from office.  Certainly a good number of Republican Congressmen and women would cheer the event also...but oh so quietly, while giving lip service to President Trump.

The power granted to a Special Prosecutor is immense.  It is reminiscent of the power granted to the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition in the late 15th century, Tomas de Torquemada.  And there are more similarities:  two prominent leaders, King Ferdinand II of Aragon, and Queen Isabella I of Castile (you may substitute "Sen. Schumer: and "Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi" if you wish) appointed Torquemada to "cleanse" Spain of "non-believers" ( you may substitute "non-politicians" if you wish) in 1483 and he remained in office for the next 15 years.  There is no "expiration date" for the office of Special Prosecutor.

Both the Special Prosecutor and Torquemada enjoyed virtually unlimited power authorized by the government with no over-ruling element (while the Special Prosecutor may in theory have some of his actions subject to challenge, the political price is so enormous that it rarely happens).

The various forms of Inquisition lasted in the Hispanic Americas until 1825, in Portugal until 1820,  and in Spain until 1846.  In Italy, it ceased in 1870.  But the office, renamed twice, remains to this day: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.This particular enumeration of "Special Prosecutor" is the first that was clearly established as a "fishing expedition" and lacks a specific law-breaking event to investigate.  Much as was the Spanish Inquisition, the Special Prosecutor may do and investigate whatever he chooses with little if any legal, political or Sense of Justice; Justice will be what Mr. Mueller declares.

Not sure that any of us should be comfortable with that.

Reverse Evolution surrounds us

I recently had occasion to read some microfiche of newspaper articles from before and after the Civil War.  All but forgotten was the personal nature of attacks on politicians running for office and their families.  My High School classes (when High School actually taught you something instead of confining its activity to that of a badly run Day Care Center) had covered the lack of civility and the crass accusations that took over the newspapers of the day during the election season...and they were an embarrassment even to a bunch of cynical highschoolers.  More than 60 years ago we commented to ourselves and our teachers that such no longer happened and we were far more civilized now.  How presumptive were our assertions.

Today's electioneering and candidates actions and statements  make those ugly days of the past seem both civilized and moral by comparison.  Today's fellow citizens leave me embarrassed.  Why?

Somewhere in our inner selves...in  our minds, our souls and our very being...we know that attacks on family are just wrong.  At some basic level, we know that liars are not good leaders; we know that policy is fair game for comment and attack, but that personal attributes (other than truthfulness and moral behavior) mean nothing.  A handsome face does not guarantee anything but a good picture.  A less than handsome visage, with or without hair, or with a wig (good or bad), doesn't make a person a bad leader.

There was a time when bad language, baseless attacks, personal attacks, derogatory comments about family members, a reputation for falsehoods would render any person unqualified for public office.  There was a time when a person's policies would be demanded and then evaluated for effectiveness and sound financial base.  There was a time when the citizens of the United States of America wanted to vote for a person and policies, not against them; we wanted to be for something, not chose the lesser of two bad choices.

Apparently a majority of our citizens have replaced judgement with greed and narcissism; the impossible promise of "free" stuff is now sufficient to cause voters to forego an examination of whether a promise is possible to fulfill, whether a candidate is a liar, whether a candidate is the kind of person that we will be proud to say stands in our stead to the rest of the world.  How disgustingly and offensively cretin-like.  Our collective acceptance of , and dependence on, such behavior should leave us all ashamed.  But we clearly are not ashamed.

We make excuses for ourselves and for our candidates.  We say things like: "All politicians lie, so you have to put up with it."  You hear, "I wouldn't say it that way but what can you do?"  We nod when we hear, "Its about time someone running for office stopped 'pussyfooting' around and called it like it is!"  And yes, we do get angry with the failure of our leaders to keep their promises, and to solve problems.  Yet we also know that solving those problems will cost us money and now a majority of us don't want to hear that truth or contribute to the cost.  The result: we not only allow the lies...we condone them by electing those who lie to us.  And then complain about it...such hypocrisy!

So now we look to have three possible candidates, one of whom will be elected President of the United States: a liar, a vulgarian and a Socialist Septuagenarian with policies proven over the centuries not to work after the money of the rich has been spent.  Boy, do we know how to pick 'em!

I would not give any one of these people my power of attorney, yet our political system is about to give one of them far more power over each of us that would be granted by such a power-of-attorney.  We seem intent on proving to the world our collective stupidity and lack of caring for our country's and our own well-being.

Is Change possible without admitting Error?

What a question..."Is change possible without admitting error!"  Is it an important question?

To define the discussion, let us assume that change made as a result of our own evaluation process is a change made by choice.  That is not strictly true, but space requires a condensing of the discussion. And let us also stipulate that change imposed by other people or outside events  are not "choice" driven.  With those boundaries in place, let us consider the question again.

There are two different kinds of changes we make in our lives;  First, we change to choose a better path or result; Second, we change to avoid a bad result that is contrary to our intention.  The first is an improvement and the second is an avoidance.  That is all well and good...but do we have to acknowledge that fact?  I would suggest that the change to improve the result often is not consciously acknowledged...unless it is in the business world.  If it is in the business world, that evaluation is often trumpeted as proof of ability to evaluate and succeed, so not only is it acknowledged, it is headlined to the public as well as in our own consciousness, and is not seen as labeling the initial direction as "wrong" but merely as an "interim" step in "doing the job right."

But...what if the change is imposed upon you by your superior at work?  Now the change is not your discovery or choice at all.  Yes, of course you will (it is your bosses command, after all) make the change and you will attempt to do your best to make it happen...but will your effort be the same 110% that you would have put in if it had been your discovery?  I would argue that it depends on whether you are able to admit that the first direction was in error, even if only by degree, acknowledge that fact, and commit to the new process or goal.  Otherwise, your effort will be something less than it could be.

So...when a change is imposed upon you it is logical that it will be less than optimally successful unless you can see that the original direction was in error.  Applied to the current discussion, "No, change is not possible without admitting error!"

What about our private life decisions and paths?  Those changes which we determine are appropriate...all by ourselves (or, at least not imposed by others) are likely to be successful.  But...do we acknowledge that the original path or choice was "wrong?"  No...I suggest that does not often happen.  But our subconscious mind does play games with us, doesn't it?  The "new" choice is better and the "old" one abandoned...at least in part...as "no longer being optimum!"  Isn't that just a polite way of saying that the "old" choice is now seen as "wrong?"  I think the answer is, "Yes, we do acknowledge error in the original choice and once again optimize the change because we do see the improvement and accept responsibility for ourselves to make the change happen.

However, now the trick question: "Does this apply to politics and voting?"

I argue that not only does it apply, but that history proves that it applies.  Just looking at the current administration (one could make the same observations about each and every other one, with the same result) we can see that a choice of who to vote for had been made twice.  The first was by and large an acceptance of a promise for "Hope and Change" in which specifics were never provided; each of us imagined that the definitions of "Hope" and of "Change" by the candidate were the same as ours.  For many, that was clearly not so.  Yet at the next election, the result was the same.  And dialogues after the second election showed that most people were unable to admit that their expectations were in error.  The majority of voters were not able to come to terms with their own error in evaluating campaign promises and character, much less commit to any change.  Only now, after almost 7 years of facing the facts on a daily basis does it appear from polls that the majority of voters are beginning to admit "error" to any degree, no matter how small.

Many in our country prefer that our subconscious deal with admitting error and putting it in an acceptable format before bringing it to consciousness.  Perhaps all of us do!  Either way, I suggest that no change is ever possible or successful without admitting error in the preceding choice, and denial only slows the correction.

Has America stopped respecting and being governed by the Constitution?

My generation revered the Constitution.  Beginning in grade school...and right through High School...all kinds of History classes were linked and compared to the Constitution, comparing and contrasting it's content against other governments in other times.  The Founding Fathers were also shown great respect for the thought and considerations they embodied in the Constitution, and than the Bill of Rights...and even the declarations and wording of the Declaration of Independence.

Not so anymore.

My grandchildren to to highly ranked schools, several now in Middle school, one in High School, one in College.  They had almost zero teaching centering on the Constitution.  Any time spent on the Founding Fathers seemed designed to find fault and to "bring them down" to a level that was disrespectful of their person's and, by extension, their work product.  Their teaching seems designed, through criticism as well as neglect, to create disrespect for the "idea" of America.

Today technology seems to rule.  Technology is a wonderful tool, although I often think that the young people of today have become too dependent on it; they don't know multiplication tables in their head, they often can't do simple math and need a calculator, a slide rule is an unworkable puzzle to them, and except for the math "nerds" Algebra and the solving of simultaneous equations might as well be Greek (and don't get me started on languages and vocabulary).  They can't write legibly...even printing is questionable, and they can't "problem solve" without "Google" or "Bing" and they are lost if the internet goes down for even a moment.  They "text" to each other even if in the same room, and walk down streets and malls blind to the actual world around them.  Most don't know their elected officials on any level, have no idea of how any government actually works, can't create a budget, read anything that takes more than 3 minutes, and can't be bothered to be civil to anyone.  Discuss the assumptions that the founding fathers had when they started to consider and create and write, and you get puzzled, confounded faces.

The concepts of "opportunity", "consequences", Pursuit", "earning", "civility", "responsibility", and "respect for others"...among others...is foreign to them.  They are familiar with the concepts of "being owed", "privileges", "my rights", "someone else's fault", and other narcissistic traits.  Their schooling (not sure if that term is appropriate any longer...perhaps indoctrination would be more truthful) and their experiences as they went through their school years have indicated that this is the way to look at life.

"Someone" has done these folks a disservice.  And that "someone" is us...all of us.  Oh, I could write for hours on the Progressive infiltration and present control of the entirety of our educational (Yeah...right!) systems, from Kindergarten (note the Germanic origin of the word...our school system is based on the Prussian Model that was intended as much for indoctrination and regimentation as it was for any real education.  Basic reading, writing and math was fine, but independent problem solving and thinking was not desired) through Doctorate Level Degrees and the application of Alinsky's Rules to turn out intellectually inadequate "graduates."  I could point out how many of the High School Graduates today cannot write a cogent sentence, cannot spell, cannot do simple math without a machine, and are unable to concentrate for more than 3 minutes on anything before wanted and...in some cases...needing to consult "Facebook" or the like.

But what is most disappointing is that it is our collective fault.  The not-so-slow disintegration of our society has not been done in secret.  It has happened out in the open and ... although couched in ways and terms that seemed legal, civil, and considerate at the time ... we all knew that we were allowing a diminution of our ideals and allowing avoidance of the concepts of "right" and "wrong."  Oh, we had excuses.  We had "reasons".  The end results was that we gave up the concept of standards and the expectation of "striving" in favor of the lowest common denominator; of not wanting anyone to "feel bad" about not being first.  And we gave up on the standards assumed in the Constitution to be a constant...that of "earning" one's way, of suffering consequences of bad decisions, of recognizing that there is such a thing as failure...and that one can actually learn from it and use failure as a sign-post to success.  This is the kind of thing that a study of the Greek Empire and the Roman Empire would have revealed to our children and grandchildren.  Such an understanding is essential to being a good citizen, whether having a College Education or not...but it no longer is taught in our Grade, Middle, and High Schools.  Oh, an occasional perceptive teacher who is dedicated to his or her students' well-being and success in life may include some portion in the course of a semester or year...but not many do, some because they themselves are not aware of its importance.

Is it too late to save the "idea" of America?  I want to believe that it is not, but...when close to 50% of us are living on the Government's tab rather than on what we have achieved and earned on our own, and that Government tab is creating what is approaching Nineteen Trillion ($19,000,000,000)Dollars in debt, it is hard to see any way to repay it without telling a lot of people, many of which will be determined voters if you take away their "free" stuff, "NO!"  Madison and Jefferson warned about the dangers once any democratic form of government served a populace who discovered they could vote themselves money that they didn't earn.  I fear that we are now there...

America has left me behind...and I miss her!

I am glad that I am in my twilight years and won't have to suffer the emotional pain for long.  It hurts me and I feel sad when events force me to think about what has happened to and in the America that I have loved my whole life.

My parents were immigrants.  My father came to this country poor, but with a work ethic and a friend who guaranteed the government that there would be a job and a place for him to stay...a requirement for legal immigration in those days.  That may still be so...I don't know.  But...my Dad just wanted a chance to see what hard work on his part might accomplish.  No guarantees, no promises...just a chance.  He didn't speak English, so he took whatever job was available.  He learned the language...not perfectly, but well enough, and to read and write it...he wanted to; he saw America as the embodiment of what he wanted to become.  He wanted the freedom to put himself on the line and see if he could succeed.

It took him some time to achieve what he saw as success.  He and, later, my mother worked long hours.  First it was for others then for themselves.  They went through the Great Depression and were intent on being prepared should another ever occur. They saved.  The borrowed only to purchase a house...and that with misgivings.  We never spent money we did not have...that was anathema to them.They taught me to read and to do simple math early in life and explained that those skills would enable me to educate myself and not be dependent on others.  And there was no such thing as an excuse for not taking advantage of schooling:  I was required to have perfect attention, to do all homework (and show it to my parents daily), and to achieve good grades as they explained that education was the key to getting a chance to succeed in life.

My father never took a Social Security payment...ever...despite living to almost 70.  He had saved and he saw taking anything from the government as a hand-out.  He had left his native land at a time when his mother had no money and the family had significant debts.  Over the years, with increasing means he paid every one of those debts off in full, with interest (even if interest was not demanded).

He gave to those who came on hard times through no fault of their own...but refused even the time of day to those who did not try; those who were slackers, liars, cheaters and what in those days were called naer-do-wells were to be looked upon as unworthy and disreputable and not to ever even be around.

I grew up in an America where to be respected, your word had to be good...it was your bond.  And work was honored, and doing your utmost was the standard.  Dependence on the good will of others was seen as embarrassing and a failure and you would all you could to get out of that situation, pay back what had been given and again regain your place as a contributing member of the community, not a taker.

Civil discourse was the norm.  People could argue on many things: religion, politics, raising children and more.  But those arguments were conducted with personal respect of each other...for the right of every person to his or her opinion.  And we used good language: whole sentences, with decent construction.  In those days, "Sailor's" language was not used in mixed company and only occasionally even when men got together.  And even then there was a certain embarrassment after some of the utterances...it just wasn't polite and generally was seen as a sign of an inadequate vocabulary.  How much more effective, we felt, to use a word of criticism that required the other person to run to a dictionary, rather than revert to clearly inapplicable scatological utterances.

Classmates of mine in High School got jobs upon graduation:  good jobs that paid well.  Some of them used the pay from those jobs save up enough to later get a College Education to pursue and dream to which they were dedicated.  And some took an occasional course to extend their knowledge but were content to live in the practical world of having a loving family and supporting it and themselves.  Those of us who went to college, went with a dream.  We wanted to achieve something in particular.  Of course in the midst of the striving, the dream often changed a bit...but there was never the thought of spending on a College Education because of any right or entitlement: it was a gift of opportunity and not a way of avoiding the real world or military service.  That would have been dishonorable and a waste of our money...or, in some cases, our parents' money...in in even more cases, both our and our parents' money.

That America no longer exists.  I liked my country.  I respected my country.  I respected the morals and the ten commandments of that country.  And I respected the immigrants who come to this country according to its laws and with the intent to become Americans...not to bring their previous country's practices and attitudes and languages and make America more like them.  They wanted to become Americans.  And, except for the grandmothers and grandfathers...they did just that.

Now, everyone seems to believe that consequences of one's actions are a thing of the past.  That no one should be either expected or required to earn a living, but should be given any job they want and not held to standards.  People "working" for the government don't do their jobs, lie about it and are never held accountable.  Our government spends money it doesn't have and claims that it doesn't matter.  Our politicians lie to us with increasing frequency and are not only not embarrassed by it...they don't even admit it.  And the Press which for decades was a watchdog over all facets of government activity, protecting the public by shining the light of truth, now joins with those in power to protect them from any revelation to the public.  Meanwhile the "public" apparently has come to believe that there is such a thing as a "Free" lunch...or free anything.  Make that everything.

I miss the America that called out to my parents.  I miss the America that I grew up in and both enjoyed and revered for much of my life.  I don't recognize the country I now live in...it is still called America, but it no longer has the soul of the country into which I was born and raised.  And it makes me feel sad.

Adages

I was raised with adages echoing in my ears.  Today, I can go for months without hearing even one. What are adages, some of you ask?  Well, as some examples: "Birds of a feather flock together," "The early bird catches the worm," and how about "Call a spade a spade."  Now, an adage is not quite as declarative as a proverb...or even a maxim...but it has its roots in both tradition and observation.

When I was a youth, and I would have some trouble that came about because of things some of my friends were doing I would, of course, claim that I personally hadn't done anything wrong and didn't understand why I was being punished.  The response?  "Birds of a feather flock together."  "You are known by the friends you keep."  In other words, by choosing friends less than wisely, I would be tarnished by the same brush that recognized their miscreant behavior.

Adages came to be recognized by me as non-religious rules to live by; instead of commandments or bible verses used to claim dictates of or by God, adages were based on long experience of many generations...proven to have value and permanence.  Over time and with consistent repetition I came to gain respect for adages...and proverbs and all the rest...as non-experiential ways of living a less dangerous life than I might have otherwise.

Now...there is absolutely no substitute for failure as a learning tool.  If you chose a dangerous path and fall and break a leg, you will never make that choice again...or at least not without taking the proper precautions.  If you invest on the promise of another and lose your investment, you will never take a person's word as sufficient again, requiring some additional form of surety.  Nonetheless, adages do have a very helpful influence and can guide all of us to an easier life, somewhat limiting the number of failures needed to grow and learn.

Where have the adages...and the proverbs, maxims, and axioms, etc.....gone?  When was the last time you heard one, except from a grandparent?

Big deal, you might say; what difference does it make?  Really?  Are you sure you want to go there?

We (the United States of America) currently suffer the presence of an administration and a President that clearly abhors truth, desires power beyond that granted by our Constitution, used words not to explain or clarify but to mislead, distort and subvert, has a work ethic based on sloth, and has surrounded himself with people who clearly want to totally change our governance.

Perhaps you ask, "how would adages and the like have helped?"  Consider my first example: Birds of a feather flock together.  Who raised Mr. Obama?  What was that person's political beliefs?  In whose church did Mr. Obama sit for years, never complaining or objecting?  What were (and are) that leader's feelings about the United States?  One of his associates was Bill Ayers, an admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorist.  If one had been comfortably cognizant of "Birds of a feather flock together" do you suppose public concern might have been loud and persistent?  I do.

And how about job background and performance as a focus.  "By their works shall you know them."  Simply thinking that out loud and then seeking answers regarding each of the seekers for public office...and particularly that of the Presidency...might have done us a tremendous service.  But that did not happen.  Instead, the constant plea of the con man of "trust me" carried the day.  Twice!

What is past is past.  But I would suggest that there is a lesson to be learned.  And that lesson is that a reflection upon adages, proverbs, maxims and, heaven forbid, Commandments might not be such a bad idea for the future...particularly when electing those who would have power over us.

Does anyone in the West WANT to understand Islam?

When politicians, heads of State, and pundits speak of events in the Middle East and terrorist acts around the world, their statements never agree when talking about motivation...and President Obama even refuses to consider Islam as any portion of the motivation.  Now, generally speaking, it is actors themselves who declare their motivation, not the victims or observers.  So...why is there confusion?

I suggest it is not because answers don't exist, but that each speaker is more motivated by their own political and ideological needs than by the desire to develop facts.  So...how does one get facts?  I suggest that a careful reading of the Qur'an (many translations are readily available on line and you can order a hard copy of you like books), listening to various Imams as they explain their religion and talking to Muslims in your community readily provide an understanding sufficient to our purposes.

The Qur'an commands its followers to strive for political power.  While doing that, followers are commanded to respect all other religions and their practices while Islam is in the minority.  If Muslims become equal in number and power, then they should demand equality of respect of Islam with any and all other religions.  Significantly, if Muslims do acquire political power and control, they are commanded to institute Islam as the only recognized religion, to impose Sharia Law and punish all violations as laid out therein.  Those who refuse to convert are then declared "dhimmi" or...and the circumstances are not entirely clear...killed.  There is a presumption that such an imposition is "Peaceful" since it is done by a gradual process of gaining power, although the imposition itself may involve violence, hence the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion.

One may logically ask,..."...but, what about the terrorists?"

Good question.  Islam countenances quite a bit of violence, for a variety of reasons.  Insulting the Prophet, as we have seen recently, can motivate Muslims to murder.  Simply the presence of behavior that is not acceptable under Islamic Law is enough to motivate some Muslims.  ISIS and other Islamic-based (as defined by the actors themselves) terrorist organizations and their members do not see any prohibition against establishing political power and control by gradual, much less peaceful, means and wish to make their supremacy happen NOW!

All of these statements and facts come out of the Qur'an, hadith, and Sharia Law.  They are remarkably easy to research, read and study, and I have found all Muslims prepared to speak of the contents and their beliefs.

When listening to all manner of people speaking of the terrorist actions as being totally outside acceptable Islamic behavior, and pointing to surveys of Muslims living in the West as proof, it is probably a good idea to be aware of the concepts within Islam of "Taqiyya." "idtirar," "kitman," "hiyal" which relate to different Islamic sects and allow dissemination (lying) to protect the faith or the practitioner.  So, any reliance on such polls or surveys is questionable at the very least.

Islam is the only "religion" that I have found that advocates achieving dominance here on earth by force.  Because it is so firmly based on a political goal, I have always believed that the only way for the politically correct West to fight this threat (very real if numerical and political supremacy is ever achieved in any country) is to use this ideological focus as a reason to define Islam as a political ideology with a religious base.  Such a view would allow control of its precepts, and prevention of adoption of its exclusive views of behavior without violating our concepts of freedom of religion.  I seriously question that non-Muslims would see required conversion as an acceptable practice of Freedom of Religion.  Nor would I.

But wouldn't it be logical, responsible and responsive...so say nothing about nice...if our leaders and our pundits did a little research on their own and present us with all the facts, instead of ill-based opinions?  It would be refreshing...and reassuring that our leaders can actually look our for our country and its citizens.

Islam: Peaceful, or a threat to the West?

Have you noticed how the great majority of terrorist acts recently have been perpetrated by those who uttered words, or left written evidence, that indicated they were acting as Muslims in the service of God?  And have you also noticed that almost every politician, with the two exceptions of the current President of Egypt and the French Defense Minister, has refused to even use the word "Islam" in anyway when referencing the terrorist acts?  Does that seem as strange to you as it does to me?

After multiple readings of English translations of the Qu'ran, it would seem that the answer to the question posed by my title is...both.

The two major publications that we look upon as the basis for Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the Qu'ran and the Bible.  According to Muslims, the Qu'ran was written by the Prophet, Mohammad.  We know the Bible was written years after the Jesus lived, not by him.  The Bible in the Old Testament is largely historical and allegorical; it provides tenets for living a live oriented to God, and provides specific instruction as to how to live one's life.  The New Testament is the story of Jesus' life and the message of redemption through faith in Jesus with the promise of rewards in Heaven.  The Old Testament in particular describes historical events when God instructed his "people" to conquer other lands, but nowhere contains any instruction for present day readers to take on any such political activity, even in defense of the religion.  The same is true of the New Testament.  Such actions have been undertaken in the name of Christianity in the past...the Crusades and the Inquisition come readily to mind...but they were movements driven by men who claimed to interpret or receive guidance from God, not from written direction in the Bible.  All religions speak to a higher existence that disdains violence in this life with rewards to come in the next life...except for one:  Islam!

Islam in the west seems to be a religion of Peace.  Yet we are aware that in nations where Muslims are in the majority, or have political control, they have absolutely no respect for any religion other than Islam; they require all to obey Sharia Law and any who are not converted take on "dhimmi" status, a second-class level of existence...or are killed.  To westerners, this is problematic...a conundrum that they apparently have no interest in understanding and definitely no interest in discussing publicly.  Why do you suppose that is?

To understand, one first must read the Qu'ran and understand not only its contents but also its authority.  As I wrote earlier, the Qu'ran was authored by Muslims Prophet, Mohammad while alive, not some historical remembering of him or things he said.  As such, it has absolute authority for devout Muslims...Mohammad spoke for God, and through the Qu'ran continues to speak for him.  There are no accommodations, no interpretations, no bargaining...if it is written, so it is and shall remain.  There is no room for asking what "is" is!

With that in mind, know that the Qu'ran commands that Muslims respect all religions so long as Muslims are in the minority.  They are to live a devout life, but honor others' beliefs and remain peaceful.  If and when Muslims become equal in power or equally influential in political circles, the Qu'ran then commands that Muslims require that Islam be given equal respect with other beliefs, and honor given to those that worship Allah.  So far, all this fits in with the western view of freedom of religion...live and let live, right?  Absolutely.  However it is the next step that means trouble.

The Qu'ran goes on to instruct the devout that should numerical or political superiority be achieved in a country, region or nation, the faithful shall impose Sharia Law and command all to convert to Islam.  If they refuse, or do not abide by Sharia Law, they either become "dhimmi" or are slain.

Some of you about now are thinking that that is ridiculous.  Really?  Consider the governance of Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal.  Not enough?  How about: Sierra Leone,  Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, and Uganda.  Shall I go on to the Americas?  Consider: Guyana and Suriname.  In Asia, as just a sampling, we have: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh...well, you get the picture.  In each of these cases, Islam rules and all are answerable to Sharia.  Lashings, beheading and stoning to death are not unusual.  Remember the spate of honor killings here a number of years ago? In lands ruled by Sharia, those don't even make the news, much less be other than proper responses by the heads of house holds.

Many have told me that this kind of thing cannot happen in America...or even in most western countries.  Really?!  How do you know.  Those Muslims who denounce the terrorists do so for one of two reasons.  The one that we wish to be true is that they do not agree with the terrorists in any part of their beliefs.  But there is a very real possibility that some of "our" Muslims are devout, and as such do not try to rush the acquisition of numerical or political superiority...which they think that the terrorists are doing wrongly.  The devout are content to await their ascension to political power and then will, in accordance with their devoutly held beliefs, happily establish Sharia Islamic rule and require all to convert to Islam or take the degrading status of dhimmi while not in any way granting immunity from the application of Sharia law and its punishments.  Western women who like fashion, men or women who like alcohol, unrelated sex, or belong to the LGBT community will find no comfort if that happens.  But meanwhile, devout Muslims...those we could correctly call "fundamentalists"...will continue to get a head start on destroying the West they see as a threat to true Islam...and they will include any Islamic groups they see as no conforming to their vision of what true Islam is...

Anyone can see the politically correct conundrum that these facts would put on today's western diplomats, office holders, militarists should they be required to acknowledge them.  Their cowardice in the face of such a large potential problem is totally understandable...even as it is nonetheless inexcusable.

Is Jonathan Gruber wrong?

In the past two weeks multiple videos have surfaced in which one of the consulting architects of Mr. Obama's Affordable Healthcare Bill is seen and heard referring to the planned obfuscation in the wording and design of the bill so that the American voter would not be aware that money was going to be taken from younger people to pay the medical bills of older insureds; that if that fact were made generally known, the bill would never have passed.  He goes on to refer to the general "stupidity" of the American voter in accepting the misleading wording.  He does this in many different videos taken at different times before different groups...and he is clearly proud of his accomplishment.

Is he wrong?

And just a vital a question is: was the public mislead by his efforts?

Before I discuss the possible answers to those questions, a little historical review is in order.  First...let us keep in mind that the human is always looking for "free" "stuff."  Usually it is in the form of a bargain, sometimes it is a gift, but always we feel good if we get something for less than we thought we would have to pay or work.

Second, Politicians have for years proven that they were serving "us" by "bringing home the bacon."  How often did we hear during campaigns of how many projects were brought back to us from Washington, how many federal tax dollars were made available to us because of our representatives' efforts?  Did any of us...ever...consider that federal tax dollars originally came from US?  That our politicians didn't give us THEIR money...they were giving us OUR own money, and taking credit for it?  Not many even thought about it.  Local pols would brag about a project that wasn't going to cost us anything because they had gotten FEDERAL money...glibly glossing over the fact that Federal Money is our money too.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.

However, because everyone in Washington was doing the same thing, and because over time the distribution of money evened out around the country, no harm was done; we all paid our federal taxes and we all got some of it back.  No harm, no foul, right?

Unfortunately, however, there was a harm.  We got used to accepting political lies and assuming that we weren't being hurt by them.  That is incorrect.  We were being, and have been, indoctrinated to accept without challenge politicians' promises of "free" stuff...even as deep inside we knew that no such thing existed.

The Healthcare Bill, however, was a break from the traditional, "you protect my back and I'll protect yours" attitude that was largely based on district based "pay backs."  This was nationwide and involved what may turn out to be a one time country wide taking from an entire class of people in order to benefit another whole class of people.  No foreseeable payback here at all...yet it was sold much the same way, with the added twist of planned and carefully considered lies and misstatements designed to support getting enough votes to enact the bill.  The Leaders of the Democrat Party as well as the Democrat President took a Healthcare model that they ideologically favored and crafted a bill that would put this model into place.  In the process, the drafted both language and construction that hid the fact that one main element and result of the bill would be re-distribution of wealth.  They also knowingly failed to announce this, and when opponents pointed the facts out, lied and denied that it was so.

Adding to this con, the President knowingly assured the American public that the bill would not require anyone who was happy with existing healthcare plans to change anything about their coverage...even as he constructively had to know that he was lying.

And now we are presented with the filmed proof that Mr. Gruber, who was considered the "go to" guy by the administration on the design and construct of the bill, not only worked to hide the facts and present wording that would keep the CBO from considering the true costs of the bill, but was effusively proud of his ability to mislead a "stupid" electorate.  And...with that, all members of the administration and of the Democrat members of Congress have developed a curious case of amnesia regarding Mr. Gruber;  they only dimly remember the name and cannot recall any substantive dependence on his abilities to design and craft the bill.  Suddenly there is no recollection of his being one of 4 people who met in urgent session with President Obama 3 days prior to the Senate vote that passed the bill on pure partisan lines to figure out how to reassure (falsely as it turns out) wavering Democrats who's votes would end up being critical to passing the bill.

Now, any thinking person would think through the process used to conceive, draft, and promote the oddly named "affordable" Healthcare Bill and perhaps some to the conclusion that those that came up with this bill perpetrated a fraud on the American public and on the Congress as a whole, and abdicating their responsibilities under their oath of office in the process.  I feel that way, but am not sure that, as self-protective of federal office holders as Federal Law is (note that the RICO statutes exempt Congress for consideration thereunder) seems to be, there is any legal recourse.

The main thought of this particular post, however, is...was, and is, Mr. Gruber wrong in his attitude about the intelligence of the American voter.

One can argue both ways.  Surely, there was an effort by opponents to point out that the claims by Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Ms. Pelosi and the rest of those in office were false and could not be accomplished under the claimed financial considerations.  At some level, we all know that there is no such thing as a "free" lunch, yet we did not react with either anger or disbelief, but sat silently by as Congress acted.  And even recently, many of those Democrats who voted for the bill were re-elected...and this was done with them acknowledging that they never read the Bill before voting in favor.  These are certainly facts that seem to support the accuracy of Mr. Gruber's characterizations.

On the other hand, people in a bad economy are focused on working, earning money, stretching their available funds to take care of their families and they believe, with certain fairly minor deviations, that their elected representatives are looking out for them...at least in the major areas.  And Healthcare involves about one-sixth of the American Economy...so I could also argue that the electorate could reasonably rely on their elected officials to do the right thing...even as the opposition was shouting "fraud" and "you lie" to the high heavens.

I suspect that many of those that partake of the Progressive, Socialist, Liberal, Democrat ideology do indeed see themselves as of superior intellect, an elite group that truly does the entire country a favor by not only knowing what is best for everyone, but doing it despite any desire on the part of the "others" to disagree.  That is the attitude so clearly demonstrated in Mr. Gruber's commentaries.  He may be right.  I happen to think he is wrong...but I don't count.  Elections have consequences and recent elections certainly have seemed to support a general acceptance of Mr. Gruber's ( and those of Mr. Gore, Mr. Soros, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, and Ms. Pelosi, among many others) point of view.

One wonders if we have reached a tipping point in this country where no longer will the electorate insist on government being responsive to the public, but allow the government to cause the electorate to serve the government.  After all, when was the last time that the government gave you back a personal freedom...or granted you a new one?

Public Schools: their Prussian and Progressive origins remain active today...

I have posted ad nauseum on the background of our educational system as an off-shoot of the Prussion model designed to indoctrinate in the guise of education, so I will not repeat that here.  But there is a story in the news that not only supports the continuation of that emphasis in the public schools of today, but also provides still more evidence on how completely the Progressive Ideologues have taken over control of our schools

Consider the case of Liberty Middeschool in Fairfax County, Virginia, where early in January a Conservative who found himself in the back of the eighth-grade class being taught by one Mr. Michael Denman might have been excused for hearing etherial music and thinking he had been transported to the Twilight Zone, either into some point in the far future or into a 1930's classroom in Germany.  Because, Mr Denman was in the process of assigning, as a learning (dare I suggest, "training") project the following:  You will devide yourselves into 4 groups; each will choose one of the Republican's currently running for the nomination to run against President Obama in the fall and research the flaws and weaknesses of your chosen candidate; you will then determine how to best attack those weaknesses; and finally, you will research who in the Obama campaign would be the right person to send your findings to as well as how to accomplish that.

Public School children 1)being trained and indoctrinated to investigate non-Democrat seekers of public office, 2)trained how to look for and exploit perceived weaknesses for the purpose of attacking the candidacy, including contacting operatives in the actual Democrat campaign with that information and, most importantly, 4) no consideration of investigating corresponding matters and the manner of exploiting them on the part of the current office holder.

It was only when some parents expressed concern and the matter was made public that the Superintendent and the Principal claim that they had conversation with Mr. Denman and indicated he should have made Mr. Obama available as a person of interest as well.  Now, curiously, there is a policy that no teacher should further any political point of view in class but this policy was not deemed to have been violated to a degree that resulted in anything more than an alleged direction for future assignments.  Absent nothing more than this (which, it should be noted, is merely claimed by the Superintendent but not confirmed by either the Principal or Mr. Denman [both of whom refused to comment]), apparently there are no consequences for violation of the stated policy...which suggests that if there is no public outcry, the policy is not enforced.

Why am I not surprised.

Perhaps Foreign Policy SHOULD be a factor this year....?

As we get into the mentally dangerous election season, we focus quite correctly on our domestic lack of jobs as well as our unwillingness to be financially accountable. In so doing, we logically reflect our most immediate concerns about personal and familial well-being; we (apparently unlike the Federal Government) need to balance our budgets while providing subsidence and pleasure (in that order) for our families. The result of this targeting of concern, of course, leads to the quite unsupported conclusion that foreign policy is either “fine” or “not important.” And that is, quite frankly, not only wrong...it is disastrous, particularly long term.

Consider the acts and attitudes that this administration has taken and expressed:

The missile shield for easter Europe was scrapped for what was claimed to be an equally effective (but later shown to fall short) mobile system;

Support has been shown for regime change in courtries where the result was either unknown, or guaranteed to put Islamic militants in power;

Support has been denied to uprisings in Iran where the result would be guaranteed to put less theology-based rule in effect;

The U.N. Has received both financial and vocal support for plans to place control of small arms under treaty-based International Control under the aegis of the U.N., thus abrogating the United States Constitutional protections of such ownership within the United States;

Support continues to be expressed for Agenda 21, which would decimate the rights of personal property ownership, and remove state and local control of land and natural resources;

And the one democratic country in the Middle East, Israel, has found that the official administration support for its safety and well-bing is illusory at best, and non-existent at worst.

Some of you might argue to the contrary, quoting the statement of Mr. Obama while still a U.S. Senator in 2008, to AIPAC on June 6^th, “That is the change we need in our foreign policy.  Change that restores American power and influence.  Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakable commitment to its security."

Sounds great, right"  No doubt what he said or the plain meaning of his words...

However, might I suggest we look at his, and his administration's, words and actions since then to see if those wonderfully clear words translated into consistent action?  Or did they prove an easily voiced dis-ingenuousness on the part of Mr. Obama during an election season?

Consider the following:

!. Without any "heads up" to Israeli leaders, he calls for Israel to unilaterally return to 1967 borders as a precondition to starting negotiations with the self-proclaimed "Palestinians";

2. Mr. Obama makes a speech in Cairo in 2009 in which he equates Israeli and "Palestinian rights;

3. The President then compounds the insult by failing to include a visit to Israel and it's leaders as a continuation of that same trip;

4. Mr. Obama reveals his true feelings about Israeli leadership in a conversation with French President Sarkozy when he respond to a complaint from Mr. Sarkozy with the infamous reply, "You're Fed up, but I have to deal with him every day" as reported on November 8th, by CBS News (and how painful must that have been for them!);

5.  And in December, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was quoted as telling the Israelis, regarding peace talks, "Just get to the damned table."

Now, any one of these acts and/or words would be considered merely a "hiccup", a stumble if you wish, in our relationship with Israel.  The administration has claimed just that, and the media has accepted them as such, looking at each of these occurrences in isolation and as a minor glitch.  But...when looked at as a whole they show not only a constant degradation of the importance placed by this Administration on the American/Israeli connection but rather a disregard that is diametrically opposite of Mr. Obama's words back in 2008.

Now, any one of these acts and/or words would be considered a "hiccup", a stumble if you wish, in our relationship.  But when taken together they reveal a pattern of both disregard and greatly reduced (and, perhaps, even the absence of) concern for the well-being of Israel;  there is, instead, evidence of a greater concern with ameliorating and placating those who oppose the well-being and welfare of the United States in the world, encouraging Islamic-themed theocracies in the Middle East, and reducing the stature and power of the The United States of America throughout the world even as he personally acts in a manner designed to further his own self-aggrandizement.

So, while all of the elements noted above can and have been written off as relatively insignificant and/or meaningless indicators of diplomatic direction if viewed individually, when viewed as a whole they reveal a disquieting pattern...one that surprisingly has failed to garner the attention of either the public or the media.  The United States is likely to pay dearly for this lack of interest.

Do any of us really care anymore?

The curse of retirement has resulted in the time to read, study and ponder on many things, one of which unfortunately turns out to be government and politics.  A friend recently responded to one of my multiple paragraph musings with the observation that these matter have been the subject of thought by untold numbers of individuals over the ages and he stated that he would leave further exploration of the various matters to the "deep thinkers."  He is probably right.  Life was much easier when I knew less.  I could decide matters on what usually ended up being a "black" or "white" basis; grays were minimal and my attitudes tended toward the absolute.

The more I read and study, the less certain I am about the propriety of any action, or belief.  If unchecked, I can reach a state of decision-paralysis because of the now-apparent multiple repercussions of a particular action.

But...I have to discuss, write, and debate with others even though I am fully aware that none of these activities will actually solve, correct, or even answer any of the questions of the day...even the simple ones.  I will do all this because...and I admit to a level of narcissism here...it makes me feel better, more alive, more engaged with life.  At my age I am no longer able to sweat out my frustrations and stress, so I have to "think" and "express" them out.  Fortunately there are some of my friends and acquaintances who find this behavior on my part either entertaining or enabling (I am not sure which, and I don't much care since they put up with me...so far) so I am not yet an exile or a mountain-top hermit in a cave.  Perhaps that will come later.

Meanwhile I wonder if any of us really care anymore...and whether or not we should!

Be Careful What You Wish For...

I have spent most of my life yearning for the time to reflect, the opportunity to really think things through and have the luxury to really consider all the ramifications of a particular matter and come to the best possible decision or position of which I was capable.  This was true in business and in my personal life; it was also true, but not as noticed by me, about my political views.  Always there was an element of limited time in which to have to decide, to act, to commit and the effects of those positions were inevitably long lasting and far reaching...to others as well as myself.

So...upon retirement, I felt that I had been the recipient of the Holy Grail.  Finally I had the gift of time with the opportunity to really think things through.  I had the opportunity to research and discuss and ponder until I was happy with the result.  I had the closest thing to Heaven on earth.

Well, be careful what you wish for, because God has a very wry sense of humor.

As I was growing up I often heard the admonition that "the more you learn, the more you realize your ignorance."  That is absolutely correct, because the simpler your decision the easier it is to make.  The more you learn, the more the number of details and elements that require evaluation, grading and prioritization...so the decision, the position, the action becomes more nuanced and the call becomes so close as to leave you totally cognizant of the lack of certainty of whatever choice or statement.

The strange incongruity is that I have absolutely no problem any longer with personal decisions.  It is only decisions that involve obligations to or for other people and for discussions, beliefs and declarations on political policy decisions that my life has become much more painful as the time available for research and thought has increased.

Personal decisions used to be a problem for me.  I would get a "gut" feeling on something, then spend hours, days, weeks, months and sometimes even years trying to get my brain to agree with my gut.  More often than not, they never agreed...and my education moved me to go with my intellect.  For me, that was wrong.  I have come to save much time and live what is almost a stress-free life by remaining aware of the "gut" feeling that I get when exposed to any proposal, proposition, opportunity or the like.  First, it saves time because I can decide almost instantaneously: if my gut says, "Ahhh...I don't know about that", I don't do whatever it is that come up; if my gut says, "Yeah!...I like that", I then engage my mind to see what needs to be done to make whatever it is actually happen.  99.9% of the time that has resulted in optimum happiness for me...and for others.  I have no idea how or why it works.  For me, I am content that it is God's way of speaking to me and giving guidance...providing I wish to listen.  But whatever the source, it works for me...so I accept the guidance with thanks and appreciation.

I love discussing current and political events with people.  I totally enjoy debating various sides of many things at all levels of government; if I feel that my "side" is winning a debate, I am known for jumping to argue the other side of the question so to do all I can to challenge positions and attempt to identify "truth."   And there is great satisfaction in working on volunteer projects with others and discussion how to define and best achieve the desired goals.  It is there that I find myself disadvantaged by having too much time and too much information...as counter-intuitive as that sounds...because of the instinct to want even more information and try to make the perfect decision or choice.  I move from a "muddy" picture of the situation to clarity and then the details become so numerous that the picture reverts to being "muddy."  Time spent.  Time wasted.

Business life understands this danger, because to be successful it sets time limits ahead of perfection...the concept is always to do the best you can by "x" date.  Whatever you have by then goes into production.  Otherwise you would never get anything to market.  Make improvements for the next version, but get something out there to sell and for people to use...while avoiding the claim of perfection.

So I have come up with self-imposed time limits for various areas of consideration, and then mentally assigned them the equivalent of version numbers (you know...like 1.1, followed by 1.2 or even, if a great improvement is developed, 2.1).  That way, I have the absolute, unassailable, guaranteed truth for ever and ever...for now; tomorrow, or next week or even next year, I may revisit the situation because of discussions with other, my own experiences or world events which will result in a brand new version...which, of course will also be the absolute, unassailable, guaranteed truth for ever and ever (with no recollection of a previous inconsistent position).

"Dreams" one key to Mr. Obama's performance...

Did you ever interact with someone who seemed the most kind, caring and considerate person while also impressing you with his intelligence and perspective, only to find another side to that person...leaving you disillusioned, disbelieving, and hurt?  That is how I feel about our current President.  It isn't the first time, and I could claim an excuse this time because I have never personally met Mr. Obama...

He is much like an actor on film or stage, having learned his lines and very good at presenting the image...and falling into the trap of confusing the role with his own existence.  And also like an actor, he is very much concerned with his image and protecting it.   He can act kind, caring, knowing and accept all kinds of turmoil around him, as long as it doesn't criticize him or harm what he sees as his image...which is extraordinarily high.

Well, this is true of a lot of Presidents.  But what is interesting is how Mr. Obama's perception of what his image...and therefor himself...really is, and how he came to that perception.

As an example, President Johnson had a very high opinion of himself and his perception was that he was a good administrator, a good wielder of power, and a good judge of character...as well as one born to tell others what to do.  He set about proving all of those things by working and developing those skills.  By the time he became President, most of those visions of himself had been proven through "doing" those very things.  So...his image, his perception, his concept of himself was grounded in reality.  True, it wasn't perfect...nothing ever is...but reality and his version of it were roughly parallel.  And many other President could be cited, but I won't waste the time here.

President Obama is different.  He clearly sees himself as a visionary.  Even his book, "Dreams of my Father", is based on dreams...on a vision...only occasionally rooted in reality and almost never on accomplishments.  It is the stuff dreams are, and should, be made of and totally desirable and acceptable.  But I would suggest that a person growing up with dreams to become an airline pilot would not be hired to actually perform in that capacity by any airline without proving through accomplishments and ability that real ability and training supported the appointment to a position with so much at stake.  Dreams just aren't enough.

Mr. Obama has proven accomplishments in one area only...campaigning.  He is seasoned at it and very good at it...even though he is still developing the skill.  It is his best and highest skill.  A couple of years in State Government and as a junior Senator don't really qualify anyone for the office of President.  His education seems absolutely wonderful...except no one seems to know how he performed or what courses he took and how he did, other than to pass.

Yet Mr. Obama clearly has an image of himself that is high, positive, and exalted.  All of this is desirable as a means of motivation to strive to achieve and learn and press on toward fulfilling that image in reality.  But the dream, the aspiration, is not enough to achieve.  It is a starting point only, not a qualification.  Yet our country has chosen to honor Mr. Obama with election to the highest post in the land on the basis of a dream and the quality of campaigning.

By so doing, we have encouraged and condoned Mr. Obama's dream as reality.  Can we fault him for accepting the coronation?  I cannot.  But that doesn't mean that he is a good President or a good administrator or a qualified leader.  And, like many a young person immersed in and believing their dreams, he feels criticism of him or his policies are direct affronts to his person, to his image, and he reacts emotionally and badly.  See him when confronted, he deflects blame (if unavoidable) to others and otherwise denies any failure or culpability.  Always.  It is NEVER his fault.  He shows this so clearly in his posture and in his facial expression that it is sometimes embarrassing to watch.

The good news is that it is there to observe and note.  The bad news is that so many in the media and in his party are so tied to his success or failure that they cannot acknowledge his inability to perform without damaging their own image or threaten their own jobs.

Dreams.  Such a good and indispensable element with which to start.  But so incredibly inadequate as a basis for performance!

Why do we need to only elect a Politician as President?

First of all, for anyone who bothers to read my ramblings, I apologize for not posting for awhile.  The politics has been so overwhelmingly catastrophic that I just couldn't make myself start commenting on anything without feeling intense sorrow for the America that once was.  But...as with all sad things...nothing changes and one has to get up and start putting one foot in front of the other and trust that there is something worthwhile somewhere down the path...

I was listening to Herman Cain the other day.  He is a man who started with very little and made a success of himself and his business and seemingly helped a lot of people find work along the way while not being a crook, or a liar.  And he cares enough about America to run for public office...the Presidency, to be precise.  Now that might be the only obvious error in judgement that he has made...at least of which I am familiar.

But...then I am besieged by multiple comments by all of the "talking heads" in the media saying that he lacks political experience and thus cannot be elected.

Why?  As he said months ago, when questioned about his lack of political experience, how has electing those with political experience been working out for us so far?  How well have we been served by electing those practiced in the art of deception and feigning sincere concern for the electorate while pursuing the aggrandizement of power and protecting their own jobs?  How well have the "governmentalists" (all those in public office who believe that government should be a major factor in defining and solving the challenges presented to the citizenry...without any proof of agreement of the populace with this premise.) done in such a simple thing as openly admitting that (mostly) previous office holders have promised free lunches of various types that just didn't, and don't, exist and the bill is now due...that the government is now going to have to change the benefits for the future and cut back on current "free" lunches because we have run out of money?  Neither the President nor Congress can even make that simple admission...they are liars by genetic disposition.

But that doesn't answer why no one in the media and very few among the public consider Mr. Cain a legitimate and worthy candidate.  Again...why?

Sadly, I suspect that it is because we, as a people, have become comfortable with the lies our politicians tell us...we want to believe in a fairyland where all things are possible and no one ever gets the bill.  We want to believe in a substitute "Big Daddy" who will take care of us, even as we refuse to remember the times when our original parent said "NO" or we suffered the consequence of some forbidden act or decision...indeed, we all have very convenient and selective memories.  Apparently, we want to be conned.  We are happy with it...and narcissistically only slightly discomforted by the thought that our children or grandchildren will have the fruits of our self-indulgence.  

Devout Christians believe that Christ died for our sins.  Apparently the people of today's America believe that their children and grandchildren should do the same.

The Argument is NOT about Entitlement Reduction...

Only in America is lying encouraged and actually protected by the Law of the Land...especially in politics.  I have spent the better part of a month trying to analyze the arguments about what is falsely called "Entitlement" reform.  Such a misnomer...everyone who has worked at all has had part of their pay confiscated to "fund" both Social Security and Medicare, but the politicians for some reason want to call paying back what we have paid for an "Entitlement."  But that is a subject for still another day's discussion...or thought...or whatever...

Today I want to write out my understanding of the argument regarding Medicare.  The so-called Republican plan is pretty easy to get.  Ryan has written out his plan and taken whatever heat or praise that the facts of the plan elicit.  It acknowledges that right now, payments taken in return for a promise to pay in the future are, in fact, a fraud and a crime...since the funds knowingly will not be available to provide the promised benefits in the future.  So he proposes keeping the promises for those for whom it is too late to do anything themselves to cover for the fraud of the government.  But, he openly changes the Medicare system to 1) bring it closer to the people by moving control away from Washington, D.C., and into the individual states, and 2) bringing it even more in tune with the people by making the amounts available to the individual available to that individual so that he or she may chose who or what supplier of Medical Coverage should bet their coverage.

But...and there is no suggestion that this is NOT true...the amount of money will not increase and there will be a possibility of financial burden that falls on individuals.  Those who can afford it will pay toward Doctor's visits and will contribute toward services costs.

Here is the curious fact, though.  The so-called Democrat solution has exactly the same results...at least as far as reducing the dollar value of benefits is concerned.  Yes, indeed.  Sure, I know you haven't seen any video of any Democrat pushing "granny" over a cliff...but everybody is sure going off of a cliff...sometime.

The only question...and the only difference between the ideological left and right...is when and who will be blamed.  It is NOT a question of IF.

Here are the facts as I read and hear them:
1)  Both sides actually agree that nothing will change for all current citizens and current recipients who are 55 years of age or older;
2) The Ryan plan puts funding policy directly into the hands of the individual state and individual funding decisions on provider and coverage selection directly into the hands of the individual who has paid into the system.  He relies on competitive free-market competition to keep those premiums as low as possible and the benefits as inclusive as possible, but that is not controlled by government edict, but by the laws of supply and demand, which will presumably be intensified by eliminating the state laws limiting cross-state competition in the area of Health Insurance;
3) The Democrat plan (as explained by everyone who has spoken with any apparent intelligence and honesty on the subject, and as verified as much as possible by my reading of the Obamacare bill) is, of course, put into effect by Obamacare is claims to reduce costs.  Actually, it doesn't...but, again, that particular element is for another discussion.  What is important, and what Democrat spokesmen will NEVER admit, is that it also reduces benefits over time.  Yep... somebody is going off the cliff.  But no Democrat will ever have his or her direct fingerprints on the wheelchair.  Why?  Because they blame it on someone ... anyone...everyone...else.


"How can that be?" you ask.  Simple.  Obamacare over time required cost controls which effect payments to providers.  And they set up bureaucratic committees that will determine what is "proper" treatment that will be covered...read, "paid for"...by reimbursement.  It also reduces over time the amount paid to Doctors and Hospitals for specific types of care and treatment.  Note, that they still argue that these payments...even as reduced...will be the "right" amount to ensure that the patient gets total care with now additional payment by them.

What does this mean?  It means that as the payments that you were told were going to provide you with medical care get too small for Doctors and Hospitals to make a living and pay off their own huge debts, they will chose to not accept patients who are on Medicare.  And Insurance Companies who you have paid for ancillary services to avoid any additional payments for gaps in coverage will adjust their coverages to match that which the government has dictated.

The result is that the Democrat plan will also have some people...maybe people who are not yet as old as granny...pushed off of the proverbial coverage cliff.  The only difference is that Obamacare will blame the Insurance companies, the doctors and the hospitals and claim innocence of any contributory involvement.


This is very attractive to all politicians for whom results are not nearly as important as avoidance of blame.  It is also attractive to a lot of voters who embrace the concept of victim-hood and also value the concept of taking a chance of failure if that failure will ultimately be able to be blamed on someone else.

The Ryan plan acknowledge that there is no certainty of total coverage, but insures that the value that you pay into the program will come back to you...and attempts to put into individuals' hands the power to maximize the economic power that those funds represent.  Yes...it does put the responsibility of using those funds in an intelligent way on the States and the Individual.  That means that you have the power of achieving great success or abysmal failure.  Amazing concept, isn't it: Freedom of Choice is NOT Freedom from Consequences...good, ...or bad.  But there is a certain rush of excitement there...or is it the breath of FREEDOM.  You decide.

(Oh...and for you non-believers...currently, your Medicare premiums over the years total about $57,000 while the medical benefits that you use total in excess of $158,000.  In a few years those numbers will be near or above $80,000 and $230,000 respectively.  Medicare IS broke...and you need to accept that.)

California could become our Greece

It is both entertaining and hopeful to focus on the now open Presidential Political Season. We will, of course, tire of it in time and whine about just getting it over with, but for now it is a chance for renewed hope and optimism...for some of us,at least. But there is an ugly threat on the horizon that threatens to make the storms in the South seem minor by comparison and that we have been "helped" to ignore by both the media and the politicians: the failure of California to take any steps to solve their insolvency.

If we are not careful, California will become to America what Greece is about to become to the European Union...a death knell and cause of economic catastrophe...we won't have to wait for the deficit bills to overwhelm us, California's failure will kick us over the cliff way earlier than that.

We all should follow what is happening in and with Greece if we want to see our own future. The European Union (EU) has rules against bailouts and debt restructuring, but that is apparently going to happen shortly. They (the EU) have already done this with Portugal...against their own rules. What does this mean? Well, Germany has indicated that they, if the process continues, will abandon the EU. Whether that happens or not (and the odds are that the German Electorate will demand it), the value of the Euro will plummet. 

Consider then our own beautiful state of California...

Known by some as "the land of fruits and nuts", they do not have a balanced budget. They have no (realistic) plan to balance their budget, and, if they were a public company, would no be rated as a penny stock with no value whatsoever. Yet they continue on unafraid and promising a continuation of the "free" lunch...oh, excuse me..."free" everything.

Guess who they will ultimately expect to pay for it? Yep You and Me! The rest of the United States. And we do not have the money to do it even if we decided it was right. But the worst thing (for California) is that we don't think it is the right thing to do. But...will Obama and the Congress declare that "California is TOO BIG TO FAIL." Where have we heard that one before.

Just think...a political decision that would accelerate our financial demise. Think it won't happen under President Obama? Really? What are you smoking...because I want some! And if you thing this can turn out well for the United States of America, just keep following the developments in the EU and Greece (and the other PIGS [Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain]).

It is absolutely as important to us as is the Presidential campaign.