I Deleted a Comment

This is a moderated blog, no comments are posted unless I have read them and found them acceptable. Cussing is not allowed and hijacking the blog is not allowed. In 7 years I have only deleted a handful of comments. I have even posted ones that were attacks on me. Most of the few posts I have deleted were accusations against specific people, without evidence, of committing crimes. Such things are for the police and not some random blogger.

Tonight I got a comment from someone claiming to represent "The Illuminati". LOL. I was even given a phone number to call. LMAO. I posted it for two seconds, so I could read all of it, and then deleted it. If someone really wants to give you a million dollars, they will not use the internet or e-mail to notify you. They will come in person. Please, don't fall for internet hoaxes.

Ben Carson is an Idiot and Hypocrite

I just finished a post on gun ownership that I will not release for awhile, at least not until the discussion of the multiple recent school shootings has died down and people are ready to actually think, rather than take presupposed positions, again. This discussion is not about gun ownership, it is about the hypocrisy and or lunacy of Ben Carson, Republican candidate for President.

Ben Carson would outlaw abortion and let just about everyone own machine guns. Is that rational or consistent? He would outlaw abortions because it kills people and what, let everyone own guns because they don't? Does that make any sense? I freely admit I am a pacifist; but, I would allow people to own guns to hunt for food or protect their families. I might not allow people to own nuclear bombs; but, just because I am a pacifist does not mean I would prevent people from owning tools, like guns, for lawful purposes. I am also not a vegetarian; but, I find I don't have to kill animals to get meat for myself. I am also not for killing animals for sport if the meat will not be eaten. It seems wasteful to me and unnecessary. That is not a good steward.

I had a friend, I don't know that we are friends anymore as I no longer trust him to do the right thing. He went fishing in Alaska and brought back more fish than he and his family could eat before it spoiled, a lot more. I was talking to him and he asked me to take some of the fish. I did. I said I would take enough for a meal, there were just two of us at the time. He insisted on giving me more than I could eat before it spoiled and still had more than he and all his friends could eat before it spoiled. I had one meal of it, the rest was eventually disposed of as I could not sell it or even give it away lawfully. Why did he catch more than he could ever use? How did that benefit society?

Here is a question for Mr. Carson. Should men and women be allowed to sterilize themselves? The Catholic church has said no in the past, would he side with them on this issue? I am against abortion in concept and have said so many times in the past. I am also against slavery and controlling others bodies. I would not outlaw suicide and I am against that too. Would Mr. Carson outlaw old people with terminal illnesses killing themselves or being assisted in doing so if they were not insane?

Did you know that technically, if you tried to commit suicide by jumping off a building and you survived because you landed on someone else and they died instead, you could be given the death penalty? Does that make sense? If not, why should crazy people be allowed to own machine guns? No matter what law we pass, we cannot stop abortions, there are too many pills and products that can induce an abortion or allow one to kill themselves. If you cannot stop someone from killing themselves then you cannot prevent abortions, the is just a fact. Oh, you might be able to induce a coma in people who are pregnant or suicidal and keep them in that state; but, would you actually be in favor of that?

I also want to know if Ben Carson is in favor of the death penalty. I can actually tell you why abortion is worse than the death penalty. Abortion kills the innocent and presumably some that will be guilty in the future, the death penalty does not kill as many innocents. Both kill innocents; but, the death penalty is more targeted to the guilty. With the thousands of people who have been killed in mass murders in the last decade alone, some of them had criminal records and some of them were bad people, I would bet money on that, not all of them were angels. If mass murderers kill as many innocents as abortion, they are as random, why would he support everyone owning a machine gun and be against abortion. Both are as likely to be used to kill innocents.

If Mr. Carson is against all murder then I would assume he would limit gun ownership to people who kill animals for food and not self protection. Your reasons must be consistent with your laws or you are a hypocrite. Perhaps, if Mr. Carson relies on the bible there is another passage or commandment that allows for the killing of others in the New Testament. Remember the adulterer that was to be stoned and Jesus stopped her stoning. Adultery is in the ten commandments, it made the top ten. If Mr. Carson is willing to allow insane people access to guns because things happen, would he allow adulterers to be stoned to death? Would you, I don't believe in murder so I would not.

Here is the biggest question for Mr. Carson. Who should be able to kill others, in groups or alone. If the answer is nobody, why should be have a military? If there are reasons why one should be allowed to kill others, what should the rules be? If the answer is because God said it, then do you believe in Jesus because he said we had to love our neighbor as ourselves and stopped the stoning of an adulterer. The answers to these questions may be completely different for Atheists and I am okay with that. I am not however for someone claiming biblical authority to ignore the bible when it calls for the tough answers and that is why I believe Mr. Carson is a weasel and a hypocrite.

Merit or Inherited Wealth Based Opportunity.

I read an article recently on how income inequality wasn't the real issue and that poverty was. I apologize for not having a link. I think I read it in the Huffington Post. I found the article interesting and agreed partially; but, I think it missed the second half of the equation.

Income inequality is not in of itself a bad thing. We should reward people for their contributions and the more you contribute, the more you should benefit. I think all capitalists and socialist would agree with that. It is only Communists that would disagree. Communism claims that we should take from each according to his abilities and give to each according to his needs. It sort of defeats the purpose of putting a lot of effort into anything. Unrestricted capitalism is a sort of everyman for himself philosophy where there is no room for working as a society.

Not very long ago we used to live in a world controlled and owned by kings and queens. It was a horrible world for most people and the monarchies could do whatever they wanted while the rest of the people had no rights and were constructively slaves. In England you could actually kill your wife for adultery and not go to jail; but, if you stole you would be killed. The same was true in many countries and is still true in parts of the Arab world. I guess it is all a matter of priorities. It was also a bigger crime to abuse your animals then your children or wife. In America you could own slaves, rape, beat and kill them and that wasn't that long ago. It was just capitalism at work.

Lets get back to my point. The two problems I see with where we are headed is the creation of extreme poverty which gives the disadvantaged practically no chance at improving their lot based on effort and the second problem is that those with certain advantages are not put under the same rules. The second part has to do with fairness. It is that all men are created equal concept and that everyone should have the right to pursue improving their life, everyone.

Every society decides how opportunities are given out and that aspect is more important than how money is distributed. Not everyone can become a doctor or a lawyer or even a scientist. Who gets to pursue those careers and who gets into college to learn those skills is determined in a limited number of ways. We can distribute those opportunities based on a lottery approach; but, I think that is foolishness. We can distribute it based on who can pay the most or even family lineage; but, that doesn't really serve any societal benefit and doesn't really seem fair or in keeping with our concept of democracy. We can also distribute based on merit. Merit includes more than just scoring high on tests, it would also look at how likely you were to benefit society if you were allowed those opportunities.

Meaningless Babble and Music

A couple of articles that I read a little bit ago; but, forgot to post and then some general discussion about the media and this election.

Huffington Post - Technology Might Kill The Idea Of Car Ownership -- And That's A Good Thing.

As we get closer and closer to self-driving vehicles, the push for gaining public acceptance will increase and in the end only the wealthy will have personal vehicles and unlimited mobility. It is coming, read the article and see the joy the writer has at the thought of it.

Huffington Post - Big Banks Call For 'Strong' Climate Deal.

Do you really believe that the big banks care about the environment. The CEOs will tell you that their only job is to increase stock prices for the shareholders. So why are they so interested in the climate. Oh, yeah, to profit from a carbon tax and speculation on carbon credits valuation.

General Discussion:

I was reading an article today about how Trump and Sanders needed to go away so that the parties could focus on candidates who could win. You know, candidates who wouldn't change anything. The media is clearly frustrated by the fact than neither Clinton or Bush is the frontrunner. I especially like the articles that claim Trump is a liberal and Sanders is not, Sanders is supposedly a commie. LOL. The media sees their role as setting the framework for the political debate we are to have and they want the issues to stay status quo and meaningless. The alternative media is as bad. The biggest internet media draws are Ayn Rand following "libertarians" who are little more than bizarro fascists.

Musical Interlude - YouTube - Pilot - Magic (1975 - HD).

YouTube - Stampeders - Sweet City Woman (1971 - HD).

YouTube - Raspberries Go All The Way Mike Douglas Show 1974.

YouTube - The Blues Image - Ride Captain Ride.

YouTube - BREWER AND SHIPLEY- " ONE TOKE OVER THE LINE ".

YouTube - Three Dog Night - Never Been To Spain.

YouTube - Crosby, Stills & Nash - Southern Cross.

Who Should Not Have Health Insurance?

All my friends and conservative and most of them believe that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is bad. I have asked them why; but, the answers are always related to non-essentials such as the websites not working immediately. Does that mean they would have been in favor of the law if the websites had worked perfectly? Yeah, I don't think so, they would have still been against it as they act like sheep and follow party lines, knee jerk reactions. These are divisive times and people do not look beyond their fears.

In regards to medical insurance I ask simply, who should not have it? Would you tell your family to not buy medical insurance? What should happen to people who cannot afford medical insurance, maybe they make minimum wage at McDonalds or WalMart, should they just die when they get sick?

Please dear readers, don't let the media determine the issues for you. Think about the bigger questions, should we be a community or not? Should we work together and help one another or not? If we should work together and help one another, to what degree? I went as far as having more homeless people in my home than family members. It should be obvious that I want everyone to have medical attention when needed. I believe in entitlements, I believe our soldiers deserve medical care, especially when injured in a war. Don't you?

A Very Old Drawing

Those who know me as an adult see me in a certain light. Many see me as a organizational planner of some type. Some know me as a political or contractual strategist. Most see me in some technical light, accounting and systems often come up. Those who know me the best think of me as a legal strategist or a predictive analyst. While I have worked in all those areas, my approach has always been one of an artistic bent.

While my readers may believe my artistic interests are mainly about writing, in fact, my first love was drawing and then stage. I cannot say which of the two was closest to my heart; but, I can say that I am no longer able to draw at all due to my arthritis which was caused by my years of gymnastic preparation. In fact, I find it difficult to write checks or even sign my name and the doctors have wanted to replace my knuckles for at least 20 years to alleviate the pain from the arthritis. I will never draw again and have known that for quite some time. The last picture I drew was about 29 years ago and was of my wife. I have no idea of what happened to it, I hope it was destroyed.

After moving out of my house because of my divorce, I had to throw out a few tons of belongings. The remaining belongings were put in storage in another state. Last week I began sifting through and throwing out the majority of what remains. I ended up going through too many boxes of stuff to count. While examining one of the boxes I came across  some of my drawings. My children and their spouses are only aware of one of my drawings, it was done when I was 12 and is a panorama of visions from the perspective of characters originally drawn in Mad Magazine. It was a fluke, a practice drawing with no intent that acquired a life of it's own and ended up as part of a piece of furniture, a table, that was also an experiment. It was never a serious drawing until it was almost complete. It was a scratch pad.

During college I worked as a cabinet maker. I have only two of my pieces, the others had all been pre-sold. Most on commission. My love was all the arts. People don't see me in that light. When my son-in-laws saw the one example of my art that they know of, it was a comic piece on a table that was not meant to last. It was a test of a new material for wood. LOL. They have never seen what I was taking my art to. They have never seen a serious drawing of mine. Well, while going through the boxes I found one and I don't know how many more.

Both of my son in laws are very talented artists. One of them is a professional artist who is well respected within his craft. I don't believe I could have ever matched his skill. It may have taken him longer; but, everything he has done has amazed me and I am fortunate to have one of his first painting, it hangs in my hallway. My other son in laws painting is in my bedroom, he never finished it; but, I like it anyways.

My children and their spouses never saw my art other than the one table piece. Juvenilia with no intent. The son in laws were surprised that I had been interested in drawing and art. They based their assumptions about me on what I did for work to feed my family. I was not good enough, in my opinion, to be a professional artist. In either case, I thought it was more important to follow another career, one of public service and I did not and I don't regret it. I also do not regret having been in gymnastics and ruining my hands. I believe I made the right choice and did what was best.

The next time I go to my storage facility I shall retrieve one of my drawings and post it here for all to see and judge. I will decide later whether or not to also post a picture of the one piece that they have already seen. I was a better artist than writer. It was more expressive of my feelings. It was more truthful and heartfelt than anything else I have ever used to express my feelings. Art is a way to express that which one cannot verbalize.

When I do post the drawing perhaps it will show my readers another side of me rather than just my analytical side. I hope so. Peace.

The Never Give Up Postal Service

I was out of state when I wrote this post and using someone's Apple computer and I don't know how to use Apple products. I couldn't figure out how to use the link commands to provide the link below so I waited till I got home to post the article and create the link.

Huffington Post - Dave Johnson - Another Attack on Our Postal Service

I have written about this subject before; but, just read the above article and would recommend you read it too. What follows is my take on this newest attack; but, I don't think I have really added much to the article, in fact, I find myself in almost total agreement with the writer which is why I have included his name in the link. I don't do that often as my readers know.

Since Benjamin Franklin began the post office it has been one of the greatest examples of public sector service delivery. Neither rain, nor sleet nor dark of night stopped people from getting their mail. Even better, the first attempt to destroy it came when it had to be 100% self sufficient and it did so. It has not received money from the government in decades. It has met every challenge that has faced it and has continued to find innovative and inventive solutions. It is also the only mail service that is required to keep your mail and transactions confidential. As most people know now, your cell phone communications are not confidential; but, land lines are. The similar situation is true with the post office, court orders are needed to read your mail, that is not true for FedEx or UPS.

The post office is also still the cheapest way to communicate with others. It costs less than 50 cents to send a letter. Check out what it costs to send a letter using FedEx. Heck, check out what it costs to send a small package at the postal service compared to private companies. As people increased the us of e-mail, the post office continued to find ways to supplement it's income without getting any money from the government. When a crazy law was passed to require the post office to put all of a person's possible retirement costs up front rather than over the course of their employment, they managed to do that to. No private company and no government agency has to do that. The law was written to kill the post office and they still found a way to succeed.

Many people believe that "government should be run like a business" and the post office found ways to run better that any other business or government agency. In comparrison, the military is not as efficient, especially when it comes to their purchases. Recently, the Navy gave tens of billions to companies to build a new destroyer and in the end, the destroyer did not perform. All the money for the destroyers (we are buying 3 even though they don't work as needed) went to private industry, along with the technology we paid for them to design them.

There are those who would benefit from the elimination of the post office; but, it would mean that the cost for mailing things would go up, there would no longer be any privacy of the mail and the only people who would profit would be about two or three companies. The public would only lose. Does that sound good to you? Well it is being promoted by some conservative politicians. They want to use a trick that large companies use to avoid taxes, take all the good parts, sell them off (privatize) and leave all the parts that don't do as well to be serviced by a post office that will then die on it's own. These are the same politicians who said that government should run like private industry and because it is efficient want to destroy it.