Mental Health

mental health

With so many shootings and so many people committing suicide, the U.S. has now become the number 1 country in suicide by gun. Well, I always said if you are going to do something, you might as well be the best at it. Like Daffy Duck once said, when he outshowmanshipped Bugs by blowing himself up, that’s a trick you can only do once. I know a lot of people are going to try and blame it on the gun makers and the NRA but I have a novel idea, how about if we look at the mental health workers. You see, some of these people that ended up offing themselves were already under a mental health workers care or something similar to a mental health worker. The Parkland shooter, he sought treatment and afterwards ended up hearing voices in his head. Maybe the problem is that mental health is such a profitable business, you become their Human ATM, that they have field operations just to keep the cash rolling in. Not all mental health workers are this way, and the head of the Public Health Services, the U.S. Attorney’s Office as well as State offices, all have a say on what goes on.

I, for one, refuse to blame the wrong people. I won’t blame the NRA and I won’t blame the gun makers. I will blame the murder gods though, as one person once said to me, “why are you still alive?”, she was very nice for asking, my response is simply because I was able to tell the truth.

Being a Human ATM for people that fix tough stuff or make you regret decisions is extremely profitable, as well as people that “can make it happen” and people that say that they “can do whatever they want”. Money seems to lure the worst out of people.

 

Religion

religion

With the Justice Department embarking on a Religious freedom initiative, you kind of wonder what they mean by that. Does it mean that they stand with the baker from Colorado that refused service to a gay couple, that wanted a wedding cake, on religious grounds or do they mean that they stand with the gay couple’s right to be treated equally under the law? What we have to realize is that some of these religions don’t allow you to recognize any other God but the God of that religion. Does that mean that the baker can now refuse service to non-believers or people that believe in other religions? The slippery slope of exclusion based on religion is one thing that we should avoid.

First, there is no religion that says that people should be discriminated for any reason. All religions say that you must be tolerant and show compassion. To refuse to treat a person like a person and claim it on religious grounds is contradictory to what the religion is all about. All people sin and in if you choose to discriminate on only one particular sin, which I don’t really know if it is or is not, then your being biased. When you start adopting rules on religion and how you can treat each other because of it then you might as well head back to the days of the crusades. Another reason to truly eliminate your wrong beliefs of religion as an excuse of proper or legal behavior is because you will then excuse people that commit horrendous crimes because of their misinterpretations of religion, 9/11, and since this country has a freedom of religion, their argument is going to be as crazy as the bakers. There is a very good reason to separate state and religion, it’s so people don’t act out and then point to obscure, misunderstood and misinterpreted verses in a religious book and use it as an excuse to be crazy.

By the way, the baker was wrong.

And, I believe that’s there only one God and that he came down six different times or however many true religions there are, in the form that the people that he was preaching to could accept and acknowledge. It’s crazy to think that an all powerful and omnipotent God couldn’t foresee the dangers of making one true messiah that only looks like one portion of the population. All religions basically teach the same things, in the core of that religion, so why would you think that Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha and whoever else would be different people but not the same person as an image that is acceptable to pass his message on to the people he /she is preaching to? Well, I’m not a religion major and I’m sure that there are arguments to debunk my belief but I’ll wait to hear them, again my Religion Degree comes from Crayola, who by the way all share the same box peacefully.

Canelo v GGG

Canelo v GGG 2

The bad blood brewing between both boxers builds because both believe by-standing belittles boxing. I hope that makes sense, what I was trying to say with just using the letter b is that they are both going to try and make a statement. I have respect for both fighters, regardless of what was reported in the past. GGG, almost always the gentleman, has taken a stand as being treated as the opponent when he is the long standing champion and an impressive one by his record. Canelo, his sole loss to Mayweather, which I blame his trainer for not having a proper game plan because Canelo could have easily beaten him, made a very interesting point, that he was the better boxer and concedes that he is not the harder puncher but power isn’t everything in boxing or Randall Bailey would have reigned king until he retired because there are few people that can match that kind of power. Canelo feels that too much was made of the clenbuterol fiasco and that he will prove it by dethroning the champion.

I agree, to a certain extent, that the incident should be put behind us and as long as he sticks with VADA, or any drug testing regiment, that we should let Canelo fight without distraction. I also agree with GGG in that he had the right to be disappointed with his opponent. Why not? GGG, the consummate professional, feels that his opponents mistake should be discussed and should reflect in creating parity in the purse. I believe that’s reasonable, again. to a certain extent. Once addressed and the points agreed on and you decide to agree on the match then you have basically said that you believe that Canelo will do the right thing and stay clean, so we don’t have to harp on it any longer. The thing that I do notice is that if they were angry, then they are the most calm angry people I ever met. I don’t think they were angry at all, I think that they leveraged their positions like good business people. While they have this reported animosity, I can’t hardly see it. Losing respect is not the same as being angry, it likens more to being disappointed in their opponents actions. We can all be disappointed in someone else. I will say this, the angry fighter will lose, because fighting angry clouds judgement and creates mistakes.

I say good luck to both fighters and my prediction is , wait for it, that a fight will occur on Sept. 15th and the better “boxer” will win. And they’re both excellent boxers.