When the First Lady when on her trip to see the accommodations of children facilities, she was immediately criticized for wearing a jacket. To the President’s credit, he immediately defended the First Lady in what was a fact finding trip that she was under no obligation to do. The First Lady realized that the criticisms that her husband was facing might have been over stated, as some media outlets will do. I applaud her actions. Some quickly derided her actions and the President defense of his wife was nothing less than chivalrous. That is what a husband should do for his wife when people that just want to criticize and start lambasting a person without getting all the factual information. With that being said, I disagree with this administration’s stance on immigration. I hope that a better solution to the immigration and DACA situations can be reached.
FLOTUS, in my opinion, is handling herself with a tremendous amount of grace and dignity under the circumstances. It is to her credit that she takes time out to make sure that the rights of immigrants aren’t being trampled on, something that goes beyond what FLOTUS duties regularly are and somewhat contradicts what POTUS is trying to establish.
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.
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
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
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
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),
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.
The latest rage is a zero tolerance policy that has both sides of the country pitted against each other, oddly enough, not completely both sides of the political aisle. I don’t know what to make of it. It’s both bad and good. Where do I start, the Dems feel that the policy is abusive and meant to single out immigrants that are trying to escape war torn countries and countries that are run by cartels more than their government. The Repubs, not a name for a bar or a place to get a black and tan but short for Republicans, feel that the rule of law should take hold and that zero tolerance would prevent abuses, here. What can I say, they’re both right. There is a list of cases that have entered court about people being coerced due to their immigration status. The people that hold these items over your head for the purpose of sex and money are predators and they have no heart. The Dems have largely ignored these abuses. On the other hand , to turn people away from our borders so they will meet their or their families certain demise and say it’s not our problem even though we like to use them for cheap labor, well, that’s just as bad. We can’t identify ourselves as Christians, Buddhists, Jews or Islamists and say at the same time, we aren’t going to help you. Those are two completely opposing ideologies. I don’t remember any verse that said go forth and block your fellow man from entering and send them back into the pits of hell for we don’t help anyone except ourselves. Are we or are we not a global community? Isn’t it up to the most powerful nation in the world to try and find a solution? To come together with our neighboring nations and work out a feasible plan? How can we attack Assad or ISIL and claim human right abuses and not find a way to eliminate the drug cartels that are much closer to our borders. Aren’t they a more imminent threat to our national security then Assad? How does the old saying go, “It only takes one rotten apple to spoil the bunch”, well, these cartels are in the same bushel as us, how are you going to ignore that rotten apple?
I’m glad I’m a blog, barely anyone reads me, so sad, but I can put my thoughts on this page because I’m sure the cartels won’t read me and if they did, I’m a blogger with 7 followers, I’m not changing policy. They’re a scary bunch and I’m not Superman. So, who is right and who is wrong? To me, like I have said many times before, zero-tolerance and sanctuary cities are extreme measures on opposite side of the lineal spectrum. We have to find a way to meet in the middle.
Like my last couple of posts, this is not a boxing match, at least not a traditional one. This is about if we, as a nation, have the right to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body. Roe v. Wade is a 1973 Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of abortion. The left, Democrats, say it is a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body while the right, Republicans, say that aborting a fetus is murder. The dilemma is no easy one. Both point of views are captivating and have some merit. Personally, for me, what a woman does with her body is no one’s business but her own. If she chooses to have surgery done than it’s her decision and she has to live with the consequences of that decision. I could never ask a woman to abort a fetus, especially after becoming a father, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. The funny thing to me is, if you have an abortion, you are most likely a liberal or a moderate because conservatives are against abortions. So why do conservatives care so much? Why does it bother them so much that a liberal is aborting a fetus that will most likely vote against their policies? It’s a really odd situation. Politics is so polarizing that people literally hate each other over it, shoot each over it, set themselves on fire over it, why is it that they feel that this particular issue is something that they must triumph over. I think it’s a cause that they lost in court and maybe they are sore losers because honestly, they hold rallies on how much they dislike the left, they insult them from the moment they are born to the day they die. Politicians want to jail other politicians from the opposite side of the aisle for any inconvenience and you are telling me that they really care that their political opponents choose to have an abortion? The logic is not there for me, I would think they would be ecstatic. The hate, as you can see in every news outlet, in every talk show, in every newspaper, is real. These people honestly hate each other. There are no kind words, no good jobs, no well done, there is only she wore a a jacket that said something or this person has a low IQ or attack your political opponent when they go eat. This is ridiculous. Who would want to raise a child in this environment? Politics has become so nasty that the new policy for both sides is do the opposite of what the other side is doing. I mean, come on, are you telling me that there isn’t a policy that both sides agree on? It seems that all votes these days are along party lines and that’s disconcerting. Can we agree on anything? We should at least agree that choice is the most important thing, it’s what separates from all the other animals, not that all our choices are good ones. When you start removing people’s right to choose, that’s from abortion to guns to where I can hang my hat, then you might as well let Kim Jong Un run our country.
For those that aren’t familiar with the case of Roe v Wade, like me when I started to write this article, it’s a very interesting read. Roe, who’s real name was Norma McCorvey, was trying to have an abortion of her third child. She was 21, single and had prior legal problems. Wade refers to Dallas County District Attorney, Henry Wade. In Texas, at that time, abortions of any kind were illegal except in cases of medical emergencies and possibly rape or incest. The case was heard by Federal District Court which found that the restricting abortions was illegal. The case was then appealed and it made it’s way to the Supreme Court. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court stated that the rights to abortion had to be weighed with the State’s right to protect its citizens. This gave way to the ruling stating that an abortion of a non viable fetus, a fetus that could not live outside the womb on its own, was the decision of the woman and trying to regulate or make a law otherwise violated some very good laws, including privacy laws. This ruling seems to be just in its face meaning that it doesn’t go to far and it doesn’t take away from individual rights. There are a lot of people that say this ruling was wrong because it has nothing to do with constitutional rights but I disagree. If you can tell woman that she can’t have an abortion, and you agree with that statement, then you should be able to tell a woman that she can’t get pregnant. They should then make it where you have to apply for a license just to get pregnant and have the government decide if you will be a fit parent. I feel that this case is not only constitutional but it is an exemplary illustration of a really good decision. To say that States can regulate your choices but the United States can’t regulate the States is absurd. In other words, if a State can make a law, then the United States can determine if that law is constitutional. There are no independent State laws and no state is immune from the United States. While conservatives attack Roe v Wade under the pretense that it allows abortions of late term pregnancies, that case is actually Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). So when you see people yelling at women going into an abortion clinic and yelling that their baby is old enough to survive outside the womb, then you are actually complaining about Planned Parenthood.
Just to note, in PP v Casey, 6 of the Justices were Republican nominees and one of the Democratic nominees had previously voted against Roe originally. In hearing this case, they had a chance to overturn Roe but didn’t because ultimately, when you are a spectator, you have the luxury of saying their wrong but when you are the one making the decision, you have to think about the decision and you can see what voting against Roe would lead to. This is why I think, can’t be absolutely certain, that it doesn’t really matter what Justice gets the nomination, at least in terms of overturning Roe.
An additional note, if you are a politician that asked a girlfriend to have an abortion so your wife wouldn’t find out or have had a wife have an abortion and no qualms with doing it then, voting against Roe makes you a hypocrite that only desires power and you shouldn’t be in office because you are only there for yourself, not the people. I’m talking to you former Idaho congressman.
You ever heard of the term selective hearing? Well, when reading and quoting the bible, people tend to have some selective reading and interpreting. That anyone would ever use a defense of religious freedom to defend not treating someone like they would treat themselves is ludicrous. That anyone would believe that Jesus would be a right wing conservative is also nucking futs. If Jesus were to come down from his perch in almighty heaven, I don’t think that right wing activists would be his chosen people, at least not the extreme ones. Jesus’s politics, if you had to choose which one he would most likely resemble, would be Bernie Sanders. That’s no joke. Jesus, god bless him, would not be impressed with billionaires nor would he impressed with the gadgets on your Lexus. No. I’m guessing Jesus would more or less be more impressed by the immigrants crossing the borders trying to give their children a better life. Maybe the politicians that stand up to the cartels in Mexico and paid with their lives. Definitely Bernie, as Jesus pokes in the ribs about not believing in him in the first place, you see, Bernie is more Torah, less good book. Since I never met Jesus, Bernie could be right, but we’re hypothesizing here as if Jesus were to pay us a visit. While Jesus is anti-abortion, he is definitely pro choice. It was God that gave us the power of free will after all, if you are religious person and not an evolutionist. Another thing he would be would be fundamental socialist. While I don’t necessarily agree with socialism, I do agree with some of the principles of socialism.
While socialism was changed to replace the word people with government in today’s version, it was really meant to be the people’s control. Once you add a leader to the equation then what you have is communism. To have a few control the many is not really the way that socialism was meant to be. Capitalism is also a little defunct as it empowers the few, just not in the government. What you really need is a hybrid of these two concepts, it is really simple but maybe impossible to implement. Let’s see if you can follow me on this:
You take all the billionaires and tell them that they have to give their billions away, not all of it, just so they are left with between 1 billion and 2 billion and not to the public or to the government but to a relative or someone of their choosing
The person that gets that billion must start a business, it isn’t meant for their personal use, and employ people, therefore creating jobs. If the business succeeds and they make more than a billion in profit, once they hit two billion, they must now give it to someone, again, not all of it, just 1 billion
If the business fails and they lose a majority of that money, then they can go ask again or take the couple of million they have left and live happily ever after while the original billionaire, who was probably smart enough to make another billion in profit chooses someone else to bestow this grand endeavor\
What you have here is a recirculating of cash into the public and no one individual becomes, well, Bill Gates, no offense to him but he is just the most well known billionaire. Money keeps going back out into circulation and what you have is a capitalistic social program that would work because you are still extremely wealthy but not stinky rich. The re-circulation of capital is the most important thing to a capitalist society. Hogging the pork, while a little redundant, is anti-capitalism.
To do something like this though would mean to get every single democratic country on the planet to agree to enact a cap on how much you can profit, not earn. That’s were the socialist aspect enters the picture. But if you think about it, you would probably have less poverty, less crime, less health care problems and less borders.
I write, I read it and I know I’m not the first person to come up with this solution or the first person to think of this but I like writing it again, it’s kind of my philosophy.