Those who seek power should probably not have it and those that avoid power should probably be in charge. There are always exceptions to the rule.
Should the U.S.A. try and acquire Mexico? That sounds funny right. In this day and age, one country acquiring another seems like a funny and even crazy idea, but is it? Do you know most of our problems are do to imaginary lines, borders. Wars are fought over these lines, walls are being built because of these lines, poverty is in large part because of these lines and how someone is perceived is because of these imaginary lines. If you were to get rid of these imaginary lines, you would get rid of almost every problem we have, maybe even climate change, which is not because of these lines. It is my opinion that this is the next logical step in the evolution of our world, to become a one country (which would not even be the right word for it because without borders there would only be a world). Now, I am definitely not saying invasion, alright Turkey, I am saying coming to an agreement that would be advantageous to all parties involved. I’m thinking less early 17, 18, 19th century and more future globalization by mutual acquisition, like AOL and Time Warner, Dow and Dupont, and Heinz and Kraft. The thought of countries merging to become one sounds funny, maybe ridiculous, but I feel that it would solve almost every problem we have. I wrote a blog about discovering a new planet and then posed the question what would we do if it came to be. Would we put borders up and separate people or would we just inhabit the world as one people? A borderless world would no longer see endless wars or any wars (saving a crap load of money on building nuclear missiles), it would not see famine (hopefully) and it would not see racism (I mean, that would have to fade away with the older generation). I know what you’re thinking, how would we hold an Olympics without borders, while that does pose a dilemma, I’m sure we can figure it out. So here’s to taking over the world one small country at a time, lol, sure as heck doesn’t sound right but if done the right way, democratically, it would benefit everyone. While everyone balked at President Trump for wanting to get Greenland, I don’t know what his reasons for trying to acquire it were, the premise of becoming one world without borders is not that crazy. The election for whoever would become President of that World would be interesting, we wouldn’t have to worry about foreign interference anymore, so there’s that, look another problem solved. There would be no more foreign terrorism just domestic and there would be no need for money exchanges.
I watched the Daily Show last night and saw Sen. Rand Paul. He spoke with the host Trevor Noah and the topic was socialism vs. capitalism. Let me say that the Senator was my choice on the Repub side for nominee in 2016. His arguments though for capitalism and socialism aren’t far off from a moderate candidate. Socialism doesn’t work, he is right, but he is mistaking communism and authoritarian regimes for socialist republics, they are not. True socialism puts the power in societies hands and not an individuals hands, that’s individualism. The regimes the Senator spoke of were faux socialist republics or only socialist republics in name but not in practice. Socialism works like this. Everyone puts all their money in a pot and then it is redistributed equally among everyone. Then the government asks for money from the people and society as whole then decides to say it is or it isn’t a worthy cause or reason to give that money. The regimes that the Senator spoke of would take your money and then take their part without asking society and then redistribute what’s left as they, this individual, deemed fit. That’s a pyramid scheme disguised as a government. The problem with true socialism is, it lacks incentive. Why become a doctor if I can be a janitor and get paid the same. That being said, capitalism is better to a point. The problem with capitalism is that it’s a wider form of communism. The CEO’s now become heads of their own entity and they redistribute as they see fit. That’s why they move their companies to countries where labor is cheaper. They pay their workers but if they can pay them less, they would and do. This is where being a borderless world would actually be most useful, greed would be put in check because now we can force a living wage to everyone in the world, no matter where you move your business. Capitalism would be put in check and there would be no socialism. Minimum wage would be the same and earnings for any particular profession would be in par all over the world. Then we can cap yearly earnings to a billion or two with the rest being forced to be taxed at a 100 percent rate to be redistributed to people all over the world as tax rebates.
The Supreme Court weighs in on LGBQT rights in a case that will define if Title VII represents the gay community. I’m not a legal scholar nor am I a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but I have represented myself in court and I lost horribly but I did learn a few things, number 1, hire a lawyer and number 2, the courts are not really about common sense but interpreting the laws that are already in place, some of which make no god damn sense at all. I’m going to try and see if I, as a failed pro se litigant, can make sense of what is going to happen. The nine justices are going to interpret whether or not sexual orientation under Title VII of the civil rights act pertains to the gay community. There are two ways to do that. The first is to figure out if congress meant to say that sexual orientation was originally written to cover gay people when implemented, the second is to read the law literally and ask does the words sexual orientation actually means who you are attracted to sexually, whether hetero or homo in sexuality, or what genitalia you were born with. The good news for the plaintiffs, the gay community, is that the law didn’t specifically say one way or the other what it meant. Orientation is a real fluid word that can be interpreted as to mean that whomever you are oriented to be attracted to, thus fitting the definition of sexual orientation. The other good news is that gender is represented under Title VII. In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual’s transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual’s sex. The plaintiff’s have previous case law and enforcement on their side. This doesn’t guarantee them a win, as a matter of fact, the case is being brought forth because of those cases. The prevailing thought is to feel that discriminating against anyone for any reason that doesn’t harm you, just your sense of religious right and wrong, and even that’s questionable, isn’t a good reason to fire someone but that’s not the Supreme Court’s mandate in deciding this case, it’s to decide or decipher what congress meant when they wrote the provision for the Civil Rights Act. The court has some leeway here, since sex or sexual orientation is such a broad term and can include LGBQT, the justices could just conclude that it is part of the Civil Rights Act, they can also ask congress to clarify the provision without making a ruling (I think), or they could say that it was not the original intent and shoot the case down, which would be disastrous and set the country back some 30 or 40 years by forcing people to hide their true nature just to gain employment. The thought that a person that is gay can be fired just because he/she is gay is obviously flawed and their should be protections for such discriminatory behavior. The fact is that it would be taken up by congress if the plaintiffs failed in their bid (I would hope) and give protections to these people. The prudent and just thing, now this is my opinion, is to have the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs and give them a much deserved and common sense win, since the law is so broad and open to interpretation, because it will eventually happen and why make these people wait for what we all know is the right thing to do. The ruling will be saying love who you want, it’s your choice not your bosses. Now that makes sense, doesn’t it?
You have to admire Ellen and President Bush, they get to sit in a box seat and watch the Dallas Cowboys. The story wasn’t how the Cowboys blew a game to Aaron Rodgers and the Packers, it was that she sat next to the former President. They are labeling her a traitor of some sort and that we she did was wrong. I disagree, all misconceptions and/or wrongful biases are only changed through conversation. I think it’s great that Ellen is sitting next to President Bush. She is obviously a very intelligent, charismatic lady with many wonderful qualities. If anyone can convince a person that they are wrong about something, it’s Ellen. If you think that you can change someone’s mind by yelling, trying to humiliate them or arguing or fighting, then you really don’t get the big picture of how things really work. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the only way you can change that opinion is through conversation and good deeds. I’m Hispanic, do you think that I can change the mind of someone that doesn’t like Hispanics by fighting them or cursing at them, no, I have to show them that their biases are misconceived notions brought by fear of the unknown. I try to show them that I’m polite, hard working and care about everyone regardless of their biases. I think what she did was an amazing testament on how to handle yourself and how to be a grown up in the digital/social media age. Ellen doesn’t need to apologize, she needs to be applauded. Haters have to hate, I guess, because if they didn’t, they would cease to exist. Everyone criticizes the former President for some of his stances and refuse to look at other advancements he made in civil rights. It’s one of those things that some people can only see the bad and none of the good because of his political affiliation. These are the type of people that if you bought them a house but accidentally ran over their dog, the only thing they would say about you is that you killed their fluffy, who was a real bitch by the way.
It was definitely an edge of your seat fight and not the reason why you would normally think in a GGG fight. GGG came out with little urgency, under control, and finished the same way, with little urgency, no energy. Derevynchenko (DV) came in thinking upset and, in my opinion, clearly got it. The old saying about fighters getting old before your eyes, well, it looks like that’s exactly what happened to GGG. GGG looked gun shy, he looked soft in the midsection, he looked like he wanted a way out. DV was pressing the fight, landing the punches and taking the chances. It just seemed like DV just wanted it more. GGG looked old and like his legs were stuck in the mud with his shots falling short, missing and he was just not pulling the trigger when it seemed warranted. It seems like he over trained. I felt like that GGG was robbed against Canelo, well, they just put some of that robbery back into his account because DV was just robbed and GGG was the beneficiary. In truth, GGG is 37, even though he looked 100, and it is his call on what he should do, but, if he feels that he made enough money in his career, retirement from a rough and tumble sport like boxing prior to suffering any real damage doesn’t make him look weak but intelligent. GGG should go out on top, he has nothing left to prove, he has proved more than most in his sport. I will say one more thing, Canelo gave up the title instead of fighting DV, so there’s that.
The New York Metropolitans decide to amicably say good bye to manager Callaway’s managerial services. I love my Mets but they seem to hunt for the right opportunity how Cheney hunts with his friends, everyone looking out not to get shot in the face by a shotgun. Not because they are doing it purposely but it seems that they lack the restraint not to pull the trigger until it’s necessary. The difference between the Mets making and not making the playoffs has nothing to do with Callaway but the Mets closer, who had the backing of the front office. Take away all of Diaz’s blown saves, the Mets are in. Is that Callaway’s fault? No. Diaz was an all star that everyone felt would provide the relief that the Met’s needed, but NYC is a big time city with heavy expectations that can put a tremendous amount of stress on an individual and Diaz, at least this year, was not up to the task. I think the firing of Callaway was a mistake. He put the best team out there and was forced, I’m sure, to use Diaz and Cano, who should have been on the bench, no offense to Cano who was a great player but is aging and a step slower. But maybe the Mets are right to get a Manager that will tell the front office who will and who won’t play. Callaway’s managerial faults were that he probably played players that he didn’t want to but felt the pressure of the front office. If they hire someone like Joe Maddon, they might actually win it all because Joe doesn’t seem like a person that will listen to the guy upstairs. I think Callaway, given the freedom to fall on his sword, would have done alright and made the playoffs.
After me and my ex-wife separated, I didn’t want her to be taken advantage of, so when she called me in 2014 asking if there was anything I could do to help, she said she couldn’t pay for rent and food and that no one wanted or could help her, I gave her the money only if she promised to graduate, not to come back to me (even though that was what I wanted) but to make sure that she was independent and had a way to provide for herself and our son without anyone’s help. If she wanted to come back, I would hope it was because she loved me not because she needed me or couldn’t afford to be by herself. I didn’t want her to be dependent on anyone, not me, not anyone for her survival. So in 2014, after not receiving a full retirement paycheck for almost a year, I gave her money and would later become homeless. I lived on the streets of San Diego, moving from Florida to NJ and then San Diego, for a year.
She did an amazing job. She graduated and now supports everyone in her household and her mother in Colombia