Perhaps THIS is why President Trump is hated/opposed by those on all sides...

 I haven't had the stamina to write for quite awhile.  In the face of such an atmosphere of hatred from the Left and derision on the right, as well as the Gubernatorial-declared self-imprisonment (clearly non-productive since COVID is increasing even in the fact of masks and confinement) life just seems to be an existence confined in a warlike maelstrom, ... mental, physical and emotional.  Some days I turn off the radio, television, computer, then close the door and pray that no one knocks...hoping to restore some sense of civil equilibrium.  But the next day the chaos still exists.  I keep asking, "WHY?"

Why the Left extremists hate President Trump is easy to define:  he denied Hillary her place as the first women President (although honesty would insist that her loss was her own doing),...and a Liberal one at that; he is the first elected President to come to Washington with no interest in, and has refused to join, the "good old boys politicians and bureaucrats club"; he fights back when attacked, 

The Media's hatred is also no mystery: he fights back when they attack him; he refuses to think they and their actions/comments are sacrosanct; he points out their "taking of sides" (well, actually just one side...opposing anything he says, things, or does) and lying.

But the opposition and disdain on the part of many Conservatives and the "clubhouse" Republicans has always been more of a mystery.  One would think that the fact that he has kept more of his campaign promises than all of the Presidents since FDR put together would elicit their support.  He has turned out to be much more "Republican-ish" than the Right expected when he ran for the nomination...being more pragmatic and only failing in the area of financial national planning...and with a singular exception all politicians on all sides of the fence have failed in THAT area.  So...WHY?

Finally, I think I may have a possible answer.  It came as I was muting still another insurance commercial and noticed with abhorrence the image of an ostrich with its head burried inb the sand.  No, I don't recall the advertiser but if I did I assure you that I would never consider buying their product.  

It was the "head in the sand" syndrome that suddenly struck me as being the "reason" for many on the Right to dislike and oppose Trump.  They prefer to see politics as having a "gentile" image and existence.  It is far from that, of course, and at some basic level they...and we...know that; it is a dirty business involving lying and compromise (always the enemy of doing the right thing and leading us to an even lower "common denominator" of human condition.  BUT they have always succeeded in denying or ignoring that side of their profession by using the language of diplomacy or ignoring lies and insults not made to their face.  It was a more "comfortable" view of their profession and their lives.

President Trump was and is not diplomatic.  He doesn't play "make believe." He responds to attacks even if those attacks come from a distance.  He destroyed...and continues to destroy...the illusion that politics was a "gentlemen's" game of high purpose.  Those who value their image more than their actions hate the fact that President Trump has confirmed what the American People have long suspected: that for the most part, politicians run a self-serving con game designed to enrich and grant themselves more and more power; that few ever intend to wilfully leave Washington, D.C., and return (horrors) to their "home" towns again...they like being "special" and being treated that way.  But President Trump has confirmed that ALL of Washington is a SWAMP infested with greed and criminal enterprises and that there are literally NO good guys or women that have been able to fight the ubiquitous corruption.

President Trump may not be able to defeat or eliminate this state of affairs.  As a matter of fact it is pretty certain that little will change after he leaves office.  But at least the American Public now know the Truth.

And I thank him for that...and for his efforts.

Chief Justice John Roberts is a "Player," not an "Umpire!"

 During his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts spoke continually of "seeing" himself as an Umpire, calling legal balls and strikes, rather than a player affecting the outcome of the game.  That concept no longer seems applicable, given his actions in a number of his opinions since becoming Chief Justice.

To be fair, Justice Roberts never promised to "be" and umpire but continually referred to how he saw himself...at least during the period of his confirmation.  On that basis it isn't possible to say he testified falsely or even that he didn't mean his testimony to be truthful. 

But perhaps his testimony provides both a cautionary tale and evidence that we should parse the statements by and sentences of those who testify under oath very carefully.  Perhaps even more importantly, the questions posed should be written carefully so they might require answers that are transparently unequivocal.   

In Judge Robert's case the proper follow-up question should have been, "...and do you, yourself, testify that this is the manner in which you will perform, if confirmed, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, sir?"

That question was never asked.  It should have been.  And that points out one of the great failings of almost all politicians when on camera, in public view, or campaigning:  they don't listen.  If the listen, they hear what they want to hear and often they don't listen at all because they are already thinking about their own next question or statement.

Almost all politicians  end up like "fence-post turtles" (found from time to time in farming country) seen upside down on top of a fence post:  they sure didn't get there on their own,  they're totally useless, and they have no idea what to do next to help themselves or others.

What most Judges have in common is the tendency to forget they aren't God.  They are part of a system that should be honored.  In Judges' cases, they aren't superior to the other parts of Government and need to remember that they are (or SHOULD BE) limited to their assignment...and that is to point out truthfully and accurately failings in our Justice system and in written laws.  It is Congress and/or legislatures that have the responsibility to change or correct the laws under which we live, and not for any court to provide a "do-over" or a "correction." 

Our Supreme Court is "supreme" only over other courts.  It is NOT supreme to the legislature, even though it has the power to rule that a law passed by Congress violates our Constitution; it can stop the application of the law, but it CANNOT and should not ever CORRECT what it (the Court) sees as an error by the Legislature or Congress.  

The Supreme Court of the United States is empowered to LIMIT actions by the Chief Executive, the Congress, and of the States to act in ways contrary to the United States Constitutional requirements.  It is NOT empowered to REWRITE laws; that is for other branches of government.

It is profoundly unfortunate that Chief Justice Roberts and other members of the Court all to often seem to forget their own limitations in favor of a narcissistic temptations to act as (or in place of) God.

Our Founding Fathers hoped that they were creating a governing entity that divided power in such a way the abuse of power would be prevented.  Unfortunately, they apparently (falsely, as it turned out) presumed that elected officials would honor their oath(s) of office and if not, that the people would exercise the power to remove them.

The Founding Fathers did not foresee (and perhaps could not foresee) the elimination of moral conscience and the removal of God and the Ten Commandments from public life.  And so we have riots, looting, assaults, disrespect and disowning of "law and order" and the police that would provide that and a "silent" (so far) citizens wonder in the quiet of their homes where the U.S.A. into which they were born has gone, and if it will ever return.

And Chief Justice Roberts now bats clean-up calling his own balls and strikes with no umpire in sight.

Why do we reward Failure & Bad Behavior?

Sixty years ago our government "discovered" that over 60% of Black and minorities were living in poverty, and under-performing in schools.  "The Great Society" was formed; it gave money to those minorities that were living in poverty and under-performing in schools, and it provided financial assistance for and access to low cost housing.

That has continued, virtually unabated, to the present.  Failure was rewarded.

Consider what might be the case today should all of that money have been provided to and rewarded the over 30% that WERE achieving and succeeding.  What if those who were failing saw that the path to success and reward was to maintain a family, learn in school, work after school, and gain degrees (High School, Junior College, College and advanced degrees) that would insure the financial assets to provide their children with better housing, better education, and the opportunity to more fully enjoy the fruits of success?

Many suspect that the government's choice to reward failure was purposeful:  it attracted votes (and therefore re-election) for the politicians; it reduced the appearance of poverty; it also made those receiving government funds dependent on the continuation of those funds, as they didn't come with job training or improved education.  The result was what could reasonably be seen as a continued "plantation dependence" on the government for both direction and subsistence, supporting an almost slave like acceptance of government direction and control for supporting a subsistence level of living.

And as whole industries sprung up to distribute government funds and service agencies, there actually grew a disincentive to improve the lot of the poor, as it would eliminate the jobs and power of those agencies.  As time went by there was less and less inclination on the part of those administering these policies to suggest attacking the cause of poverty rather than ameliorate the symptoms.  Except for a few organizations working to reward achievement, there is little acknowledgment of this long term failure.

This needs to change.

And it is possible that the nation would benefit from abandoning the statistical fascination with Race and possible switch to focusing on "foot size" or even "hair color" as a means of determining who may be discriminated against.  Or...if logic ever prevails...perhaps we could focus on achievement and/or motivation?

Considering the state of the nation today, I'd even accept using "civility" as a basis for job and benefit qualification...or, in the case of reporters, "truth."

Is America being "Colonized"?

Nothing is forever.  Nations fail.  Countries disappear...not as land areas (although that has happened) but moving borders, and migration and invasions change the character.  Even where the name has remained, what currently exists bears little resemblance to that same area's character, personality and governance of even a century ago...with the exception of the United States of America.

Certainly Europe has much of the same borders, but the political existence is largely changed, with the advent of the European Union, and other changes in self-perception, Europe and the world generally has seen huge changes.

America has defied the general rule and remained generally stable during its entire existence.  A great degree of credit for this can be correctly ascribed to the Founding Fathers creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.   These documents, and the attitudes they represent, made governmental change possible without revolution and upheaval, and the success of individual efforts resulting in an economy that made possible successful defense of its borders against all invaders.  

But nothing is forever.  Just like businesses, nations are affected, and threatened, by stupidity, carelessness, non-interest, laziness and greed...any one of which is capable of leading to a nation's downfall.

Australia, the East and West Indies as well as Africa existed for years, only to fall to the colonization by Europe.  Even America started in that fashion, with European nations descending on the North American continent, driving out and subjugating the natives to a European lifestyle and values.

The United States used to be a destination for folks who were unhappy with their country of birth, either with the governance or the possibilities for advancement.  They came to America because it provided opportunity for both personal freedom and success in accordance with their efforts and abilities (not guarantees of success but the guarantee of an opportunity to succeed).  But in the last century it is now apparent that resident desire for power joined forces with immigrants (both legal and illegal) who came with the desire to change America into the kind of country they had left, with the great improvement of allowing THEM to exercise the power.  They did not come to "join" America, but to reform and subjugate it.

Even our Media (ostensibly) serving our common interests, declare the white majority to be racist, even as the non-white population break laws, harm property and people and declare that they deserve to be given whatever they define as success.  It is the media and the minority that display racist attitudes and "values."  If the White majority were truly racist, the actions of the minority would long ago have seen them executed or deported.  

Current events reveal that America is being threatened by what can only be labeled as "colonizing" forces;  BLM, the LGBT+ community, and Marxists, Socialist and Communist organization and individuals protest, riot, destroy and kill in an effort to overturn our Democratic Republic.  Many oppose it...but many native inhabitants in India, Australia, and Africa didn't like or accept the values imposed by European colonization either. 

The questions come down to:

1.  whether the European DNA of our past renders us unqualified to oppose this attempt to take control and change the essence of the United States and its Constitutional foundation of over 200 years; and
2. whether the fact that weapons possession and law provide the "native" population with sufficient choice and motivation to oppose these colonization attempt(s).

Or..,will the majority seek to ignore or appease the invaders from within.  Will we. like a frog placed in warm water over a roaring fire...simply sit placidly by as we are overcome, subjugated and killed by the enemy?  Should we all start language lessons?  Arabic and/or Mandarin might be the better choices. 

COVID-19: a discussion

(Disclaimer:  I am not a medical doctor.  I have no qualifying scientific degrees.  But, at almost 78 years of age I am in the "at risk" category according to all reports, and as a retired, multiple degree holding individual who is curious and has the time, I have been reading all I can find about this virus and trying to establish a layman's understanding of just what the SARS-CoV-2 threat is all about.  That leaves me with questions as well as a lot of ideas and my intent is to share them with anyone who is also curious and wants to take the time to consider my findings and thoughts.  So...I am not TELLING anyone what to do or what to think...just musing out loud...or in print, to be accurate.  Proceed at your own risk)

My assumptions (perhaps better termed, "presumptions"):

• The "unknown" causes fear
• Sudden "unknown" causes contagious fear
• Fear eliminates logic
• Lack of logic makes for bad or flawed decisions

About the beginning of this year presented reports of a rapidly growing health threat from an unknown extremely contagious virus that held out danger of inordinately large mortality rates on a world-wide basis with no medical solution or intervention known to exist.

The fear was immediate and grew exponentially.  The "flee or flight" instinct took immediate hold, with "fight" not apparently in play so "flee" was the almost universal reaction.  Just what "flee" meant was varied but generally became what we now refer to as "lock-down" and "spacing."  "Logic" was still on holiday, albeit with some groups and individuals attempting to approach the danger looking for solutions that would bring "fight" back into contention.

One of the perils of having some folks attempting to repond logically to a threat when the majority is still in "flee" mode is that even if the logical approach presented in incomplete and/or in error, it SEEMS like the siren of truth, logic and reason and rarely is questioned or doubted.  But...almost inevitably there ARE errors and gaps.  These are to be expected.  But...what SHOULD happen is that these presumptions be examined almost daily to discover, correct or eliminate all that is wrong.  Consider the following:

• Predictions of enormous loss of life were predicated on estimates that were flawed.

One of the errors was basing projections on no effective steps taken to minimize the effect and the spread of the virus from person to person.  

• Initial presumptions were that the virus was long-lasting on various surfaces and was virtually impossible to avoid between individuals closer than 6 feet from one to another.

This has turned out to be largely untrue, as current reports by the medical community suggests that the virus does not remain dangerous on most surfaces for more than a short time.

Then there were the errors and presumptions that caused authoritative declarations to be made (and largely accepted) closing businesses, transportation, community interaction and person to person contact of all kinds.  Some of these errors:

1. Not recognizing that "lock-downs" were ineffective when the virus was already present;
2. Even while recognizing that the elderly and those with pre-existing medical challenges were primarily at risk for loss of live, Governors chose to send recovering patients to Nursing and Old Age Homes resulting in infection of others already at risk of death.
3. Reacting politically rather than logically in an election year by deciding that they (the politician office holders) had to do SOMETHING lest the voters think they didn't care.  Clearly the right action in some situations is to NOTHING until or unless PROVEN FACTS point to a specific line of action.

When one reflects on the fact that just over two years ago (2017, Fall) America went through an immensely severe flu season that resulted in as many deaths as has resulted from COVID-19 and no one lifted an eyebrow or even thought, much less suggested, that we "lock-down" for safety, a question and set of facts comes to mind.  Every bug, every virus we have experienced has an approximately two (2) year life span.  The Spanish Flu in the last century ran its course in two years.  Others have the same record.  So...I suggest the following questions are appropriate to put to the medical community for responses and answers:

• If enormous funding results in a vaccine claimed to be effective and is available in a year, will it be claimed that it is the vaccine that eradicates the occurrence of this virus?  Or will its virtual disappearance be the result of the natural two (2) year life cycle?
• Does the "lock-down" approach truly operate to lessen, minimize, or otherwise protect the public from the effects of this virus?  Doesn't such "isolation actions" lessen or even prevent a development of a "herd immunity"?  
• Has medical research adopted the proper presumptions as to optimal treatment?  Some articles have reported that the oxygen level of COVID-19 sufferers have dipped dangerously low WITHOUT fever or corresponding obstruction of lung function (these come later, suggesting to some that the lung problems result from the virus, and are not the direct cause).  And other reports are that the implementation of respirator treatment puts the lungs under pressurized oxygen with actually has been shown to decrease the ability of the lung tissue to absorb and oxygenate blood, actually acting to deprive patients of oxygen and contribute to death.  Some reports and at least one presentation on Youtube, by Dr. Zach Bush ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DqZs9tLZIU ), suggests that upon diagnosis of the low oxygen blood levels prior to any fever or lung obstruction it might be wise to consider a treatment such as used for cyanide poisoning, currently involving three (3) injections.  If that increases blood oxygen levels, then there may be no development of lung obstruction eliminating all but liquids and bed rest to recover.  Shouldn't medical authorities have to respond to this concept...and any others?

And finally...at least for now...can't we all agree that in an medical event Government, Politicians, and holders of elected office should not be allowed to "not allow an emergency to go to waste" and seize control of our lives in a way that we would never allow if not for the fear that they encouraged, fed, and enlarged in order to try to validate their power grab(s)?

What do you think? 

Why are we fat?

Those who study these things report that, as a nation, Americans are fat.

• Is that true?
• If so, why? and,
• Can or should we do something about that?

Statistics suggest that more Americans are overweight than ever before.  Moreover, general observance and anecdotes back up those statistics, so it seems that the we are fat.

"Why" is always going to be an individual answer if total accuracy is your goal.  But for the purposes of this discussion, general habits and behavior will be the focus.  Two primary reasons for obesity and being overweight suggest themselves:

1. Over-eating; and
2. lack of sufficient exercise.

And it is likely that a combination of the two would have the most impact.  Certainly there are individuals who have medical challenges that cause increased body mass, but generally it is clear that more food (or bad choices of food) and less exercise are the cause.

But...what are the root cause(s) of those factors?  Again, observation suggests three major causes:

1. Television;
2. development of the two income family; and
3. The internet.

The advent of Television in the late 1940's was the beginning of a quantum shift in children's attitude and interest in physical activities.  Oh, it didn't show up immediately; children and teenagers had developed habits over the years of playing baseball, football, basketball, hockey in the winter, and other activities such as dodge ball, hide & Seek and others that exercised their growing bodies and those habits stayed with them.  But parents with children born in the early 1950's and later found that it was easier to get housework done and get some needed "down time" if their children weren't out running around, getting hurt and into trouble in the neighborhood, but instead watching "educational" programs on the Television.  And if the kids stayed quiet and out of harms way even as the found that they could switch the channel to watch cartoons...well, how harmful could that be...it was make-believe.

Following World War II, men came home to a nation where women had gotten used to working, earning money outside the home, to a nation where new and better products were available and a general desire to own a home and live better than before.  So men got jobs too, and grandparents watched children during the day. On weekends parents "caught up" on household matters and acted as parents once again.

That wonderful new thing...Television...turned out to be a soporific tool for young children not available before.  So, little by little, parents weren't heard commanding their children to, "go out and play, it is a beautiful day!"  Instead they were content to enjoy the peace and quiet of the house, bothered only by the occasional need to tell the kids to"turn the sound down" on the television.  

Of course, there was still (and that continues today) the "gym period" at school.  But that doesn't really provide physical activity, as studies report that on perhaps 20 +/- minutes of activity occur since most of the time is spent standing around as the upcoming activity is being described and teams and/or pairings are set up.  Gym periods were and are only a light reminder of the intense sports and exercises that used to be the norm at recess (no longer much in existence), after school and on weekends.  So Gym is of little effect and/or consequence.

Those "television children" grew up be parents that did not exercise themselves and certainly were less and less likely to make their children do any different.  Meanwhile, the
"two income" family became the norm, leading to less consideration being given to meal preparation; tv dinners, take-out meals became more ubiquitous, and kids home from school found lots of high calorie snacks in the refrigerator to eat while the sat on the couch watching....wait for it....television.  They were NOT going out over the neighbor's kids house to play sandlot baseball or shoot hoops.  No...none of that was or is happening today.

For years, the only exercise some kids got was when they had a report due for school and had to...gasp...walk or travel to the library and research the subject.  

But even that tiny bit of exercise was about to be made elective. Because now the Internet came into existence.  Now neither child or adult had to leave the easy chair or the chair in front of the personal computer.  Exercise?  Why?  For what purpose?  Besides, life is becoming more complicated and more things have to be learned, so eliminating running in the park (or even walking) puts more stress on one's time...so that takes a back seat (and often doesn't remain in the vehicle).

The Internet and the television became more highly developed, so it then gave birth to the "smart phone" (although that confuses me, as I have had one for more that 15 years and it still hasn't made me any smarter).  Now both kids and adults don't even have to meet to talk; I caught my two grandsons texting each other across the same room!  I have a friend who, when he visits his children and grandchildren, confiscates the kids phones as he arrives and only gives them back as he is packing to leave, telling them that they are going to learn how to converse with him and each other person to person with their voices and looking each other in the eye.  After a painful day, he says the begin to enjoy it...and he has hopes that they actually may be able to negotiate their way through a job interview at some time in the future.  But I wonder if some will even be able to do that...or maintain concentration on anything for more than 45 seconds.

But...getting back to the subject...our parents AND we took the easy way out even while intending, perhaps, to do the right thing.  We failed to balance our desire that our kids learn (from educational programs) with their need to develop their bodies to carry their brains through a long life...and that inevitably led (and continues to lead) to shorter life spans and increased pain and discomfort during the latter years.  

For some time I have thought that most families (both adults and children) would benefit from shutting down all forms of electronic access for a week each month...maybe even on at least one weekend day each week...and instead schedule outdoor physical activities (games, hikes, walks) to coincide with face to face conversations.

I know many families who even now require that all phones be muted or turned off and left in another room while the family has dinner at the table and combines the dinner hour with conversation.  That should be an "always" thing...for all of us.

If we don't work to change our ways, I fear the the fictional "Matrix" as seen in the movie of the same name will become a very unpleasant and unenjoyable reality.  However, if today's parents recognize the benefit of, and the need to, reverse this process, it can be reversed.  But it means making a conscious and consistent effort to push children away from the computer, the cell phone and the couch to make them "go out and play."  It means getting other parents with children of the same age on the same page,getting together in the park and letting (perhaps, in the beginning) making them get involved in pick-up games of dodge ball, hide & seek, flag and touch football, baseball.  NOT organized, like Little League and the such...although those are great.  It is the non-athlete who needs to add physical activities to an otherwise seductive sedentary life style.  Jogging, hikes are good too.  And this all has the advantage of also refreshing the mind and actually making the time in front of a computer more productive.

I sincerely hope that just thinking about all of this will cause at least a few to take the steps to truly show a way to save (or at least better benefit) our wonderful children.

Why do businesses succeed...and fail?

Quick, simple answers pop right up.  But pause a moment and the simple answers just don't provide complete understanding.  The obvious answers are:

• make money and become rich;
• a challenge you can't refuse;
• compete and win; 
• see and meet a need.

The truth may be that there are as many reasons for starting a new business as there are people trying.  

Most businesses start with one common trait: each and every founder of a successful business was stubborn and a leader.

There is, however, one additional trait: perceptiveness. They understood and met the needs of the customer...of the marketplace.  Quality and Price always go together if there is to be success.

An study of the beginnings of any business only teach us about that...the beginning.  There have been many men who started a business and ran it successfully, only for it to fade and fail upon the death of the founder.  Why?

Many stubborn leaders don't want to delegate; it gives up control of quality and process and leaves the leader subject to mistakes and lack of drive by others and is anathema.  They don't like it; it smacks of lack of control and giving up of power.  They will make it very uncomfortable for anyone who pushes for any sort of delegation.  That stress will tend to drive all but the most subservient away...to other businesses or enterprises, leaving no one of leadership quality to continue the business upon the passing of the founder.

The businesses that survive do so because some just as stubborn subordinate refuses to be driven out and values what the business does more than a good relationship with the founder OR the founder comes to see the business not as an extension of themselves, but as having a business life and purpose of its own, and comes to appreciate nurturing it as a separate entity, welcoming others with new and different approaches.  If all at the top management level continue to respect and nurture that approach, the business will survive until that attitude fades and dies or the quality of leadership fades and dies.  Either will lead to collapse or absorption by another, successful, company.

Why be concerned with such considerations?  One major reason is as a potential investor.  You can be certain that the attitudes and quality of management, whether of a start-up or an ongoing business, are of paramount reason to a Warren Buffet and others who make their living as investors.  Whether buying stock, or investing in ownership/profits of start-ups, success depends on evaluating the motivation and talents of those at the top (or, in the case of a new business...the bottom).  As a person looking for a job, the same evaluation would be a benefit, if only to work at getting a job that would last.