Telling it like it is, or it should be, or like it's going to be, or the way I wish it would be, or the way my girlfriend who just yelled at me told me it is
Can’t turn a blind eye to the truth, the truth will still be there, and then you won’t have the peripheral vision to avoid it smacking you in the face.
Remember when immigration was not only wanted but needed. The Mayflower arrived in Plymouth Harbor in 1620, after first stopping near today’s Provincetown. According to oral tradition, Plymouth Rock was the site where William Bradford and other Pilgrims first set foot on land. Back then immigration seemed like a right, today it’s looked upon as an infringement of our rights. This aversion to people immigrating is a brand new phenomenon that has taken place in the last 50 years or so. Prior to that, we used to have a big ol’ welcome mat. To reaffirm this thought, ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was formed in 2003, just 15 years ago, most likely in response to the Twin Tour attacks. While ICE was mainly used to search for criminal elements they are now being used indiscriminately.
Do we remember why those pilgrims immigrated in the first place and why we had a revolutionary war? It was because of a monarchy that was seen as tyrannical and didn’t offer the right to progress. Now we have other people that live in the same conditions as what was going on in England, France, Germany and other countries around the world that were led by the brute force of a monarchy. They come from countries that are either dictatorships, i.e. Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea etc., or countries that are overrun (present tense because it’s currently happening) with corruption, violence and crime. These people that are immigrating are trying to escape what the pilgrims were trying to escape those many years ago. To turn a blind eye to their problems is to deny our own past. It is my feeling that these countries, that are so close to our borders, present a threat to our national security. We want to build walls, they’re not going to work by the way, which is like giving a tylenol to cancer, rather then to address the situation with full on chemotherapy. I don’t blame anyone for immigrating, legally or illegally, since there isn’t any new lands to discover or migrate to. Being the biggest, best and strongest super power, we should be a lot more proactive in our approach in solving these matters. Now we have people that say that are country is degrading due to immigration, I wonder if that’s what the Native Americans thought, and call for ICE to both be abolished by one side and to work overtime by the other, another example of a country divided by issues that seem well within the realm of compromise.
I don’t disagree with their use, ICE, and it’s the U.S. Attorney General’s discretion as how they are to be used. You can’t complain about them being used when what they are doing falls within the guidance of the law. By that, I mean, they aren’t out there and just trying to focus on one group of people, in contradiction to current laws and case law i.e. Armstrong v United States, they’re out there enforcing the law no matter who you are. It used to be that they prioritized their case load, that doesn’t seem to be the directive these days, with that, I do disagree. It’s like telling a cop to handle what’s in front of them no matter what else is going on i.e., going after the person that jaywalked that is right in front of him/her instead of responding to a violent act in progress. The reason we prioritize is so we can get the people that will actually do harm instead of the people that jaywalked. The same goes for immigration, in my opinion. You want the people that pose a greater threat and then when they are taken care of, then you go after the people that are contributing to a civil society, if needed, you know, in your own sweet time. I believe in enforcing the law, but I believe that you have to prioritize.
Final thought on the matter is that, as a society, we can’t think about how the problem affects us, personally, but about fixing the problem itself and maybe why it exists.
I believe in Karma, I believe in a balance in this world. I believe that in this world everything has it’s equal opposite. The one thing I haven’t found, I’m sure it exists, is the opposite of how fast stupid can spread. I mean I never seen a group of people pose common sense answer and it spread like wildfire, but I constantly see it in stupid.
With everything that’s going on in the world of politics, you sometimes wonder how we are a functional society. You have the midterm elections coming up and people will go out to vote, I won’t, not because I don’t feel voting is the right thing to do but because you have some extremely conflicting ideologies that are moving so far to the their perspective sides that I feel that voting either way would just create more problems than solutions. Maybe that’s the message the American people should take until these ideologies start meeting in the middle somehow. Imagine an election without a vote, except for the delegates themselves, that would be a powerful message from the people that the parties should start working together.
And the winner for whatever office is so and so from the whatever party with 7 votes to 5 votes, with the winner having more family members.
To the Dems,
I would like to say that Hillary Clinton lost because she lost, not because of any outside influence by any agency. Sometimes you just don’t win because you weren’t the right person at the right time, novel idea right. While I understand the psychology of wanting to place the blame on someone else, sometimes, especially when you are feeling over confident, you don’t see the pitfalls that lie right in front of you. I wrote in a blog in 2016 that the only person that could lose to the Repubs was Sec. Clinton, not because she wasn’t qualified, she is very qualified for the post but because of the excess baggage that she was towing. I also wrote that the only person that could beat all the Repubs was Senator Sanders but he wouldn’t beat Sec. Clinton. My prediction played out. That’s life and we move on. For the Dems to now combat the move of the right to go more towards the left is a mistake. Former President Obama won on the ability to reach both parties and his message was not move to the extreme left, it was one of hope of solutions and reuniting the country. It wasn’t the message that lost the Dems the election, it was, and I like Sec. Clinton, but it was her. Sorry, some might disagree. My solution to you winning is to find a way to integrate your social programs with private capital ventures. It’s fiscally irresponsible to say or think we can do everything you propose without increasing taxes, even though I would love free healthcare and education. Ultimately, we’re paying for it anyway. Give special corporate rates to companies that implement a social program that is worthwhile. Find a way to motivate the capitalistic company to give back in a socialistic manner. I still have that gym with free healthcare idea. Give a big company a special low tax corporate rate to implement it and it’s a win win situation. Has there been a private venture that has accommodated or made cheaper any other expenditure, just look at Tesla and there space exploration, saving tax payers millions.
To the Repubs,
Becoming a divisive party that rules by conflict is only good when you want to topple another nation, not when you want to unite ours. It is my opinion that you should shed your previous monikers of being the party of the old white guy, that’s what the popular opinion is, and remake your party as the party of fiscal responsibility, no crayola categories. Constant conflict wears down people and countries and it saps your energy. While I like, so far, the way the country is heading fiscally, I feel that it won’t be sustainable if we are in a constant state of turmoil. The ability to find solutions, no matter who presents the answer, is key to creating a better tomorrow. While I liked playing the dirty dozens on the school yard, it makes me cringe when I see it in my politics. My solution to you winning is to start being more inclusive. Add a little spice in your life, by that I mean get a Pres Sec. that is a moderate and have at least one left leaning adviser who is loyal to you and the country so you can get the opposite perspective. This will help you in winning some of the left “IF” the economy keeps it upward trend. Oh, yeah, this probably goes best unsaid but I’ll say it anyway, you don’t have to pick a fight with all the people that criticize you, because no matter what, 45% of the people will, and that will leave you exhausted and give you a reputation as a bully. My solution for that is that you can try giving them a compliment and just say you don’t agree with them on that particular issue. It works. Point out their good deeds and say you just don’t agree with their political perspective.
Those are my thoughts but I guess if my point of views worked, I wouldn’t be a retired blogger. Good Luck to both parties.
Step 1 to becoming Supreme Ruler, control the dialogue and the people that disseminate that dialogue. Stop this from happening and there is no supreme ruler. Support a Free Press. Don’t think this will ever happen in the U.S., we just need to be reminded why the First Amendment is so critical to our country.
If things progress the way they are, this is what the United States might look like in the near future, they might all have to wear bullet proof vests. Lets have respectful dialogue not closed minded vitriol. The Press is not the enemy.
These people controlled their Media or had State Medias that controlled the news, we aren’t there……….yet or do I think we ever will. Let us make sure we do not become these countries, support a free and open press.
Genghis Khan: “the supreme warrior” …
Henry VIII: “the Bluebeard king” …
Ivan IV: “the Terrible” …
Maximilien Robespierre: “the incorruptible face of the Reign of Terror” …
Joseph Stalin: “the Father of Nations” …
Adolf Hitler: “the Fuhrer” …
Augusto Pinochet: “the Reformer-Dictator” …
Pol Pot: “Brother Number One”
Kim Jung Un: “the Supreme Leader”
We can disagree on issues, we can’t let those issues divide us. The Media cannot cause a war only the people that control the military can. When people label the media as combatants, what I predict is an investigation into the media, which might be seen as a way of trying to control the media.
The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads as follows; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Being that this is the first amendment, our founding fathers thought that these particular rights were very important for the success of a democratic nation to succeed. Those were their first thoughts and inclinations on what was needed to establish a free society. That was why the most important war fought in our country’s history, the revolutionary war, was all about. I have a tremendous amount of respect for news organizations. They are, in many ways, the bedrock of our great society. They inform the masses of factual events and raise awareness to injustices that would threaten those freedoms. How important is a free press? To a democracy, it’s as important as breathing. But it isn’t enough for a press to be free, it also has to be fair and accurate. How important is a fair and accurate press, to the people that make up the democracy, well, not to sound redundant, but it’s as important as breathing.
When the American settlers decided to form their own government and break from, what they saw as, an oppressive monarchy, they had certain realizations in mind. Those realizations, the first ten amendments as well as the preamble to the constitution, were thought of and written in a time when their human and civil rights had been discarded and just regained. They were written when monarchies made the rule of law and decided what was best for everyone. They, the king or queen, would decide what was best for the people and they would also decide what information the people should know, what religion the people should practice, what they can utter in public and if they were allowed to protest. If anyone decided to disagree with them, they would be jailed, tortured or executed.
One of the greatest philosophers of our time and the person that most influenced our Constitution, John Locke (I’m an Immanuel Kant fan myself), was very aware of what
John Locke
tyrannical monarchies could do and wrote the Two Treatises of Government. Not to go to in depth about his works right now, it pretty much said that people should pick who governs, for which the monarchy exiled him and would later try and blame an attempted assassination of the king on his works. His only fault was that he wrote something that he felt was right and true, that all people are created equal. We would later find out that he only meant people that looked like him but the point is that he distributed these treatises and would later be punished for his views. He had no idea of knowing that those treatises would be the principles that formed our government today. The one that he did not write, the one that he, himself, openly demonstrated was the right to express your views as well as publicize them.
James Madison is credited as being the architect of the first amendment. His thoughts were that if he had to choose between a free government or a free press, that a free press was more important. John Adams, our second President, didn’t agree. He would enact a
James Madison
Sedition Act that could arrest press members if they wrote anything that was not true. The Sedition act would be repealed after he left office. What these Presidents knew, and every President from George Washington to our current President, have had to contend with is that the press, with the release of information, empowered the people, for information, factual information, is power. Ask the NSA, they are an agency built around that very motto. They don’t exactly agree with the dissemination of that information but they love gathering it. They’re the tight lipped relative that hears all the secrets but never tells anyone.
The importance of investigative journalism is detailed in an essay by former Managing Editor of the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser. He discusses the importance of a free press
Woodward and Berstein
in his latest Bookings Essay. How powerful is the press, it brought down a President, Nixon (1972, Woodward and Bernstein expose Watergate), it forces lawmakers to enact laws, the civil rights laws (tv news coverage of the atrocities happening), it fights corruption (1902, Ida Tarbell profiles J.D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Co.), it fight sexual harassment and inequality (2017, #me too movement and 1992, Florence Graves reveals sexual misconduct in Congress), it fights government overreach (1953, Murrey Marder dogs Sen Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt and 2013, NSA Surveillance on American Citizens). When it comes to politics, some organizations seem more like lobbyists then reporters, you just have to read both sides and see where the similarities are and where they differ to get the truth, but most outlets report facts when it comes to the above mentioned items. The press is as necessary to free society as oxygen is to living, there I go again, being redundant.
True journalism, not the barbie and ken dolls that get on TV and tell you what outfits to wear, but true journalism like the Woodward’s and Bernstein’s, Dan Rather’s, Daphne Caruan Galizia (Killed in a car bomb 10/2017), Eliah Lovejoy (anti-slavery abolitionist killed by angry mob 11/1837), Irving W. Carson (killed covering the civil war 4/1862),
Do you notice that the one’s that are orange and below are countries that you would never want to live in.
Walter Ligget (drive by shooting while reporting about mafia and political associations 12/1935), Don Bolles (car bomb while reporting about organized crime 6/1976), Manuel de dios Unanue (assassinated by Colombian drug cartel while reporting on the cartel’s activities 3/1992), Chauncey Bailey (shot dead on a Downtown Oakland street on August 2, 2007, the victim of a crime syndicate he was investigating for a story) is what this country is made of.
They’re not all dead, nor do they have to die to be a true journalist, some are still living;
Eric Lipton of The New York Times
For reporting that showed how the influence of lobbyists can sway congressional leaders and state attorneys general, slanting justice toward the wealthy and connected.
Eric Eyre of Charleston Gazette-Mail, Charleston, WV
For courageous reporting, performed in the face of powerful opposition, to expose the flood of opioids flowing into depressed West Virginia counties with the highest overdose death rates in the country.
Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eileen Sullivan and Chris Hawley of the Associated Press
For their spotlighting of the New York Police Department’s clandestine spying program that monitored daily life in Muslim communities, resulting in congressional calls for a federal investigation, and a debate over the proper role of domestic intelligence gathering.
David Barstow of The New York Times
For his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.
Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith of The Washington Post
For their indefatigable probe of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff that exposed congressional corruption and produced reform efforts.
There’s more but I’m a blogger, not an author. Without these people, none of these issues would have been addressed, may I add at great peril to their safety and security. It isn’t easy telling the government that they are wrong, they don’t take it well, not well at all, trust me, I know. Now, I know that some TV journalists have to fill their hour up, ratings matter so they can break these stories that are necessary, and I applaud them because I know that they want to hit the system hard with that they see wrong, they give you the fashion ten minute review so later then can give you a breaking news story. I don’t mean to degrade anyone.
Can we, today, invest in a journalistic magazine, buy an online subscription to a credible news source, not mine, a real one, keep America safe by buying a newspaper, trust me, you’ll thank me in the long run. By the way, I’m a fan of propublica, they make everyone look bad. Check out their site.
With all the news about Apple hitting the trillion dollar mark, it made me wonder what Apple is actually going to do with all that capital. They’re capital surplus is more than all but 16 country’s GDP in this world. They are the 17th biggest country, if they buy an Island for themselves and maybe call it Ambrosia, you know, after the apple. They would be considered a major economy. Their sole product would be, well, exporting Apple, not the red delicious type but the laptop, iphone and ipod type. Apple has recently invested $350 billion dollars over 5 years in creating U.S. jobs. That’s good! I have railed against the company in some of my past illustrious blogs about their inability to be team players and to give back to communities that have given so much to them. I wish I had thought of putting pressure on them to create jobs here. That’s definitely a win for this administration, their losses come from deporting families of veteran’s who put their lives on the line for our safety, it’s a give and take. Getting back on subject, Apple has shown that capitalism doesn’t mean you can’t have a socialistic outlook. By creating factories here, they have given people opportunities, even though it’s recent, course corrections like that can be done at any time. Better late than never, so, hats off to Apple and this administration on these particular events. I, personally can’t criticize someone (deportations and separations of families) and not give them their just do and congratulations or applaud them (have Apple invest in our community) when they make, what everyone else said was impossible to do, happen. Investing in our community, global community, as a whole by asking companies to give a little back in form of some kind of social program, when they make 1 trillion dollars, seems to me, should be the norm.
Lebron James, who in 2018 made or is going to make 80 million plus and who’s net worth is roughly estimated at $440 million (just to put that perspective, that’s a little more then four ten thousandths of apple or .00044 of apple or 44 cents for every thousand dollars for Apple, so, he’s an apple seed which I’m sure will continue to grow and to put that into perspective to my finances, I would be walnut, because walnuts didn’t make any money, they’re broke and probably owe more than they have, thanks mastercard), just built a school in his home town of Akron for underprivileged children to get a better start in life. That is amazing and Mr. James, or apple seed (just kidding), King James, should take a bow.
The Gates Foundation is another great example of a capitalistic socialistic view. The Gates Foundation, is a private foundation founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. It was launched in 2000, and is said to be the largest private foundation in the US, holding $38 billion in assets. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington, is controlled by its three trustees: Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett. Other principal officers include Co-Chair William H. Gates, Sr. and Chief Executive Officer Susan Desmond-Hellmann.
It had an endowment of US$44.3 billion as of December 31, 2014. The scale of the foundation and the way it seeks to apply business techniques to giving makes it one of the leaders in venture philanthropy, though the foundation itself notes that the philanthropic role has limitations. In 2007, its founders were ranked as the second most generous philanthropists in America, and Warren Buffett the first. As of May 16, 2013, Bill Gates had donated US$28 billion to the foundation. Since its founding, the foundation has endowed and supported a broad range of social, health, and education developments including the establishment of the Gates Cambridge Scholarships at Cambridge University.
With this type of generosity from people that are willing to take a capitalistic socialistic approach to life, it makes me wonder, why haven’t more people done it, in their private ventures? Apples venture isn’t as socialistic as the other people mentioned, crossing my fingers that they will also follow the Gates Foundation path, because they are getting something in return, product. But with all that wealth and intelligence, couldn’t they come up with something truly altruistic? The biggest fix this country needs is healthcare and, in my opinion, that solution can’t come from the government, it has to come from the private sector. If one of these multi billion companies or the one trillion dollar company, could figure out a solution to that problem, they would truly be indispensable. Some people feel that it isn’t private companies responsibility to take on such a task, I think different. I say it isn’t right to make a profit on sickness and that when you make that much money in other areas that it is your responsibility, not only responsibility, but duty, to take on such tasks. While giving money as donations is great, it isn’t sustainable. Plus free, doesn’t really give a sense of self worth or accomplishment, not that I wouldn’t accept the offer or be grateful.
I always thought that my gym should offer me cheap, 100% covered healthcare. You can make it so that the gym makes a small profit, enough to pay employees and and cover any maintenance cost and overhead, and the rest should go to paying for healthcare costs. This type of venture can only be started by a company that already has it’s roots settled firmly into the capitalistic ground and let the socialistic leaves bloom. You can even sell your other products at the gym, if you make something like fitbit or similar device. That would be truly be a capitalistic socialistic private venture. The good it would do, would truly be amazing, because you wouldn’t be making a profit on the healthcare portion, just the gym product portion. This is only my thought but one thing is for sure, neither socialism, having the government create a universal healthcare medicare thingy, or capitalism, making money by raising prices on pharmaceuticals and charging exorbitant prices for health so the CEO can buy a yacht, work.
If someone takes the leap and decides on a plan to intertwine socialism with capitalism, which is not a mix of communism and democracy, those are political views and plus you wouldn’t have a cool army to order around, I think it would solve a whole series of problems. So if I ever hit the lottery for two trillion, which would make me two Apples, I will definitely give it a go, until then, I blog.