Sticking to What You know Best.

For some time, we heard the opinions of famous people not known for their expertise in the cited issue.

I noticed first with physicists. Albert Einstein, was one of the world's greatest mathematician and scientist. Almost all of his predictions came true. But then he tried his hand at social science. He came out with the now well known statement - "insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results." Nonsense. It's called perseverance. I live in a building with an elevator. I press the button to get the lift but nothing happens. I press it again with no result. I do the very same thing again and I get the elevator.  The same with trying to fix a lens that got knocked out of its position. I tried the same thing for five times with no effect. I tried the same thing a sixth time and was successful. The examples abound, but still some people quote him because he was a great scientist.

When asked whether he believed in reincarnation, he was said to answer that G-d could not be so cruel. Cruel?

Another award winning physicist said that there is no free will except for what others do to us. He gave driving as an example. If someone honks at us we use our non existent free will, not realizing that if we have no free will, everything is predetermined and a part of a larger puzzle, including everything that happens to us.

A brilliant physicist named Stephen Hawkins said that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing precedes nothing. So if I lost everything I ever owned and had nothing, it means I always had nothing. Physicists have come around to the realization that nothing exists before consciousness which is not nothing even though it is not a thing.

Now we have people famous because of their acting skill or sense of humor give their opinion.

One of the greatest actresses who has ever been, is a wonderful person by all accounts. When accepting yet another award for acting, instead of acknowledging all the people who helped her, she made an absurd speech about nominee Trump. It was embarrassing. Whoever wrote that speech should find another line of work.

One of America's greatest actors, came out making insulting remarks about the President, though he did not know what he was talking about. He's a great actor but not a great thinker.

We hear from some "comedians" regarding politics. One held a beheaded Trump. Another spent much of her "comedy" routine at the press dinner, insulting the woman sitting next to her, Sarah Sanders ( no relation to Bernie Sanders).

A few years ago we saw a football player who was in his second season of bench warming, his career was over. He decided to get attention and maybe a chance to play, by kneeling for the National Anthem. Other black players joined the chorus for solidarity with one of their own. They were blaming America for its treatment of fellow blacks. Over the previous few years, several black men were killed by police. What these players did not object to was that the majority of U.S murder victims are black as are 93% of their assailants. They did not decry Chicago inner city dwellers who can kill more fellow blacks in a weekend than are mistakenly killed by cops each year. Remember these are football players who got college for free, and make more than a million dollars a year for playing half of the season's 17 games doing their favorite things. Almost 1,000 NFL players make at least $1million a year.

Now one of our greatest basketball player said that white NFL team owners treat players like slaves. This from a man who makes $80 million a year and is free to go anywhere. He also reminded us that the Nazis built the Berlin Wall, except they didn't. The Soviets built it to keep communist East Germany from capitalist West Germany.

My advice is stick to what you know. If I don't know anything about art, I should not publicly denounce a work of art, unless I mention that it is my opinion alone. I think that each of us is great at something and ignorant about many other pursuits.    

Ugly Americans

This was the title of a best-selling book in the 80s. I always thought it was about how nouveau rich Americans behave as tourists, especially Europe. It was actually a book about the U.S. failure at diplomacy.

Now we have a new kind of ugly American. This has nothing to do with a person's physical beauty or lack of it. This has to do with our behavior.

Most Americans are honest, hard working, self reliant, fair, respectful, law abiding, compassionate, and generous. It is these qualities that made our country great.

The Democratic party stood for these values. But not now.
Lately some Americans have behaved in an ugly manner.

Democrats have moved from center left as were Obama and Clinton, to being extremely liberal, socialist, abandoning our values and disregarding concepts like innocent until proved guilty and due process.

They rallied against names. Certain words can never be spoken. If they are, the speaker is to be ostracized. They started with names of groups. Americans of distant African heritage must be called African Americans. This name would change their lives for the better. Do we call Americans whose parents came here from Europe 60 years ago, European Americans? If they are Jewish should they be called Jewish European Americans?  Isn't this being divisive, with people being identified by their ancestry instead of as Americans, thus creating salad bowl instead a melting pot? 

American Indians who have been severely mistreated by our government, were to be called Native Americans. Every person born in a America is a native American. 

Then there was the baseball team which has been called the Redskins for 81 years had to change their name they were told. They didn't and in a survey, 90% of American Indians don't care about it. 

Then the far left decided to limit any free speech that they don't agree with. At the U.C. Berkeley, a Republican campus group invited two conservatives to speak on two separate occasions. One was a best selling author, the other was a far out Britisher who was gay and married to a black man. They both challeged some liberal maxims and suggested some of their own. No one was forced to hear them talk. But the far left would not allow it. They rioted and damaged campus buildings. The chancellor had police stay away. Berkeley academic standing declined, it is no longer the number one public university. It has gone from the free speech movement of the 60s to not allowing contrary opinions - not allowing free speech, if they disagree with it.   

Some wanted to not have Bill Maher, the liberal's liberal, do a comedy routine at their college. He had said something disparaging about Islam. He came anyway but many comedians are not going to campuses because the extreme political correctness makes many funny routines possibly offensive to someone. No one should ever be offended!

When a deranged racist murdered people at a church service in South Carolina, we saw pictures of him with the confederate flag. The left suddenly wanted all such flags taken down. Then it was 100 year old statues of leaders of the Confederacy. They not only petitioned government officials to take them all down, they started taking them down themselves. It proved that they were against history, racism and law and order.

Then it was on college campuses. Someone wore a costume of an American Indian for Halloween. This was strongly objected to by the extreme left wingers on campus because it might offend Indians.

On another campus, Princeton, some wanted the name of a past president of the university and the nation removed from campus buildings. He was a liberal president but it was thought that the did not have a positive opinion of blacks.  The school administration refused to comply.

Next it was all famous Americans who owned slaves and/or did not consider blacks equal. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson were all found guilty. The extremists then wanted all names of these great men removed from all states, towns, schools and/or  street names or anything else that bore their name. Even our capital would have had to change its name. Some went so far as to want their images on Mount Rushmore erased.

Some students at a prestigious university wanted the name "dorm master" changed because it might remind students of African heritage that some of their distant ancestors were slaves. The school complied. But they didn't go far enough. They shouldn't have master's degrees, masterpieces or call someone a master at what he does or that a student has mastered the language or algebra.

When Trump was elected many already didn't like him. His electoral opponent labeled him a misogynist, racist, xenophobic, dishonest, and anti immigrant, saying that half of his supporters were deplorable. The mainstream media echoed this sentiment making attacking him fair game. A failing comedian held what looked like a beheaded Trump. Another celebrity encouraged us to do things to his son. A Democratic Congresswoman who represents a poor district though she lives in an affluent one, called on fellow liberals to harass anyone in the administration. One said that Trump's son should be put in prison with pedophiles. The response was "no, we don't want him going to Hollywood."  

At the White house dinner for the press, a so-called comedian used the platform to attack Sarah Sanders, who was sitting right next to her. From now on White House dinners will have no "comedians."

Sarah and her family were harassed and chased out of a restaurant and across the street. No Democrat criticized the protest. The town and their customers did and stayed away from the place. The restaurant had to close for a time, perhaps hoping that people would forget. There was similar behavior to a cabinet secretary and the Vice President. Those protesters were arrested.

The latest is this claim that a juror got drunk at a party 36 years ago when he was 17. It is not likely to have ever happened, and it is clearly unimportant. What a teen did does not determine what he is 36 years later. Everyone knew this. The left tried to then claim that even though the judge was innocent, he behaved badly at his hearing. But that wasn't enough. Some ugly Americans, not caring that the event never happened, still say that he is a rapist and should not be on the Supreme Court. Translation, "we don't want a conservative Catholic on the high court."

We have ugly Americans among us. 

How to Solve Three Main Problems Americans Face

The nation's leaders are grappling with at least three seemingly difficult issues: Immigration, health care and taxes. 

I would suggest the following.

On immigration illegal and legal.

I believe that we must stop all illegal immigration. 

We should not allow it but instead make it less necessary. People are dying to leave their beloved countries to come to America. They want to leave because of crime, poverty and/or corruption. Many are advised to claim asylum by their lawyers. Most want to come to America, the land of milk and honey whose streets are paved with gold. We also have a much lower crime rate. Mexico and Central American nations have some of the highest.

Who can blame them. Wouldn't we do the same?

My plan is to close the southern border and have those wanting to claim asylum go to the nearest American consulate in their country. Their issue can be checked there. Those approved for asylum will be transported for free to the U.S.

In order to reduce the massive crime rate, we should send our special forces down there. They can fight the many gang members responsible for the crimes. It would be a large version of the "Magnificent Seven."

We should also send Americans with business experience to help change the economic system so that the poor get paid more and get better education and training. 

Then there would little cause to come two thousand miles and pay thousands of dollars to gang members.

On legal immigration I agree that only spouses and their children would be able to come and the spouse who sponsored them must be responsible for accommodating their needs. I think that we should end the lottery in favor of the merit based policy.

On fixing the Affordable Care Act. 

We have to face the fact that the ACA is seriously flawed. Insurers have withdrawn from the market leaving one out of three applicants with only one company to choose from. Knowing that they had a captive audience, they have raised their rates to make a profit after insuring the disabled. It was forcing everyone to get coverage to offset the costs incurred by the disabled. 

The argument has been that everyone has to sign up to the full plan even though they don't need it to take care of the others. Also it was argued that if someone doesn't have coverage, we have to pay for it if he goes to the emergency. The average monthly ACA payment is a little more than $1,000 and there are some deductibles. So a healthy person must pay as much for an  emergency care with an average cost at a bit more than $1,000 ( before the usual discount.)  So a healthy person would have to go to the E.R about 15 times a year to get the average monthly amount to have $1,000 paid through insurance.

Which costs us more - a healthy young person who does everything to stay healthy and rarely needs medical attention, or the unhealthy person who abuses drugs and goes to the E.R. frequently while on Medicaid or Medicare? We all pay for that.

But don't we need the healthy to offset the cost incurred by the unhealthy?

Here's my idea is to continue to making enrollment voluntary as it was recently changed to. Let private insurers deny coverage to anyone with health problems. Those denied coverage would immediately be eligible to the "public option" which would be a federal program with a share of cost depending on income.

The insures would rush back in the market competing for the healthy applicants. They would lower rates and perhaps get ride of the deductible. They should also be able  to offer a policy that just covers the base medical needs. The reduced plan would only cover  medically necessary hospital costs; office and clinic visits; medicine and other medical supplies; and lab tests.This plan could be much less expensive making it more attractive for their voluntary applicants.     

We would end our annual $8 billion dollar subsidy to insurers. This amount could somewhat offset the additional cost of the "public option."

On fixing the Federal income tax code.

This administration made the tax code simpler and more affordable.  I think that it should have gone further. I think that there should no itemized deductions that mainly help the rich. Instead there should be a standard deduction of $20,000 for singles and $40,000 for families. All income sources would be equally taxable. So $40,000 from dividends, interest, social security benefits or earned income (minus the FICA deduction) would be considered equally taxable. There could be four brackets from 10% to 25% up to $500,000. Those making $500,000 to just under $1 million would pay a straight 30%. So someone earning $600,000 would pay $180,000. A family making over $1 million would pay a straight 35%. So a family making $2 million would pay $700,000 in federal tax alone. This would free the IRS to focus on the self employed and businesses.                                                                                                        

All and Everything

"All and Everything - Beelzebub's Tales To His Grandson" was the title of a metaphysical book by the famous Russian/Armenian philosopher,  George Gurdjieff. It was a tale about humans for his grandson who lived in a distant planet as did Beelzebub. He had studied humans and came to various conclusions. The book is long and complicated.

According to Occam's Razor, the simplest philosophic explanation is the right one, if it covers the issue.

Here is a metaphysical explanation that takes just a few minutes to read and should explain everything metaphysical.

 First some background

Some previous metaphysical columns in this blog include: "Why Do Bad Things Happen?" "Punctuation Marks in the Grammar of Life,"  "Religion Meets Science, Metaphysics and Physics," and "Third Millennium Metaphysics - G-d Even Atheists Can Believe In."

Most Western religious systems believe that G-d is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-present. 

Several Eastern religions believe that this life is a dream, an illusion. Who is the dreamer?

Greek, Roman, Hindu, Jewish and even Christian mystics tell us of infinite beings, gods, who come to earth as finite and mortal humans.  Some have children who are part human, part god. They can die but are eternally gods.

Jesus was the most recent example. He was called G-d, part the trinity of G-d's nature, and he was human. He suffered as a human and was crucified. He was still infinite and immortal.

Jewish mystics cite the first line of the Old Testament when G-d spoke and said let there be life. It meant that life exists only because G-d keeps making it happen. He produces the universe with his consciousness. When He spoke there was no one to hear Him except himself and He had no calendar to count the days. 

Some physicists today believe that everything is consciousness. The quantum mechanic physicists believe the universe is run by a giant infinite computer system, infinite consciousness.

Bishop Berkley, an Irish philosopher in the late 17th and early 18th century, believed that nothing can exist without awareness. He was challenged. "What if you start a fire in the fireplace and leave for an hour? Without your awareness how did it continue to burn during  your absence?" The Bishop answered that G-d was aware of it. 

The famous Zen koan is "if a tree falls in the forest and no one  hears does it make a sound?" might mean that nothing can be said to exist before or without consciousness.

Mindful of all these precedents, here is the  theory.

What some call G-d is infinite consciousness which makes the universe. Nothing can be said to exist before consciousness. Everyone is part infinite consciousness and part individual consciousness. So we are part of the infinite puzzle and we are separate from it. We are the objects of the infinite consciousness and we are subjects of our own. We are products of a dream and creators of our own when we sleep. We are the subjects and everything else is our object.We are and have consciousness. (Dreams are products of our creation, they are consciousness but they do not have consciousness.)

The soul is infinite while the body is finite. When we pray, we are addressing our infinite consciousness for help. That's how G-d hears our prayer, because we do.

Because we are infinite the motivating emotion is love, the unifying force. Love is the mother of all intrinsic motivation - doing things as ends in themselves. Since we are separate, mortal, the motivating emotion is fear; we fear death and of feeling inadequate - the source of all negative emotions like anger, envy, jealousy, greed, self pity and frustration, to name few. Fear is the mother of extrinsic motivation, we do what we do because we have to survive, a means to an end. 

Mindful of this duality, we are best advised to do everything as a means to an end and an end in itself. We have to eat to survive and we can love the food we're eating. We have a job because we need money to survive and we can love what we are doing.

Many Eastern religions believe as do Jewish mystics that the soul keeps coming back in different human forms. 

According to Edgar Casey, "the sleeping prophet," most of us were incarnated as male and female alternately. So if a man dies, he will come back as a woman. The person's destiny is determined by past lives, which Eastern religions call Karma. So the soul carries with it past actions and past talents. This explains child prodigies who read at three, play the piano at four or become great athletes. This is not their first life doing, or knowing that.

While most of us reincarnate in alternating genders, some of us come back as just one for several incarnations. This, I think, explains transgenders. If a soul comes back as male again and again and then is reborn as female, the soul may want to change back to its familiar gender. The soul identifies with past incarnations.  

We also have and don't have free will. On an infinite level, everything is predetermined because it is a part of the puzzle. On a finite level, we live as though we had free will. We try our best and plan for the future.

But why do bad things happen?  I believe there is one cause for all suffering be it wars, poverty, ending relationships, crimes, injuries, illness, making mistakes, shame,, guilt, embarrassment or dying to name a few- Entropy. 

Entropy is the natural disorganization/ disintegration of a product of consciousness. War is the disorganization of diplomacy, poverty the disorganization of economic systems. Entropy can be personified as the Devil, but is at the very core of existence. Without entropy, nothing would go wrong. No one would be ill, there would be no poverty or fear.  There would be no need for lawyers, police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, dentists, soldiers, car mechanics or hospitals. Without life's changes we would have no memory and little motivation. Without fear there would be no courage. Without poverty there would be no need for compassion or kindness.

The prophets and the Messiah promised a golden age. It would have no entropy. Heaven is also without entropy because it has no time or space; but we can't live here without it. 

This, then, is a simple explanation of all and everything.

   

  

If They Say They were Mistreated, You Must Believe Them

The new mantra is if they make a claim of sexual impropriety, you must believe them even if it turns out to be false; even if it ruins the innocent accused. Even the accused are guilty before proven innocent; we don't need due process. The mantra refers to women but other groups could also apply. 

Women have been subjugated throughout history. Their claims of sexual harassment have gone ignored. Even rape got little attention, so if a woman claims she was sexually assaulted, she was.

Many years ago a woman in New York, Tawana Brawley, claimed that she was raped by four white men which included a police officer and a prosecutor. Their careers were tarnished. Then we found that she was lying.

More recently a party entertainer claimed she was gang raped by several Duke Lacross players. The accused were kicked off the team and forced out of the school. After years of investigations, the woman was found to be lying. The students who were presumed guilty sued the university for how all the damage of this tale affected their lives.

A student at Brown University claimed that she was raped while she was drunk. The entire student body turned against the accused. He was ostracized and forced to leave school. That claim also turned out to be false. The accused sued Brown for millions.

A coed at the University of Virginia claimed that she was gang raped by a group of fraternity boys while her boyfriend watched. The Rolling Stone wrote about this allegation as though it were true. The fraternity was a kicked off campus and a few college administers had to step down. It turned out to be untrue. The accused students sued the magazine for its sloppy reporting.

But though these claims were false as were those made recently against a Supreme Court appointment based on her allegations. She couldn't remember when it happened, where it happened, how she got there and how she got home. None of her "witnesses" said it ever happened. She took a lie detecter test and the results were inconclusive. We then learned that she knew how to cheat the detecter. The result was that the Senate approval was delayed with Democrats hoping that thanks to this false allegation, they can run out the clock. Now, though no one claimed rape and though her allegations proved to politically motivated, young progressives starting calling him a rapist.  Now senators who voted for this fine juror were subjected to verbal attacks. One senator who was about to get an honorary degree from a state university, was to be denied the degree because she voted for a sex offender.

Those who say "believe her" remind us of all the women who never got justice, so even patently false claims should be believed.

But what about members of groups that were mistreated for hundreds or even thousands of years? Should we believe them when they claim to be discriminated against?

What about Americans of African descent? Haven't they suffered from racism? Many had ancestors who were African slaves who were sold to Western slave traders. They were slaves in America until 1865. Then they were subjected to Jim Crow laws that segregated them in schools, restaurants, on buses, water fountains and bathrooms. Surely, if they claim discrimination, we should believe them even before investigating the claims?

What about American Jews? Their ancestors were slaves in Egypt,  were overrun by the Romans and had their temple destroyed twice. They were marginalized in Europe with many of those countries expelling Jews or persecuting them at one time or another. When they complained about their mistreatment they were ignored.

Starting in the 1920s, Ivy League schools like Harvard set low quotas for Jewish applicants, perhaps believing that their superior intellects gave them an unfair advantage when competing for admissions. (Now they are limiting Asian admissions perhaps feeling that their  superior motivation would give them an unfair advantage.) Shouldn't we believe them, if they claim discrimination? Who know it better?

Lately, a gay young man has claimed that a junior Senator from New Jersey, also known as Spartacus, had dreams of running for President in 2020. Haven't LGBTQ members faced enough discrimination. Should we believe him even though he is making a claim about a Democrat?

But what choice do we have? 

We can hear all complaints of wrongdoing based on gender or ancestry, withholding judgment until a full investigation is concluded. We can remember that in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in due process. As Reagan said of the Russians, trust but verify.

The Emperor's Newest Clothes

The Emperor's Newest Clothes

When I first heard the story of the emperor's new clothes, I thought it was ridiculous. How could an entire population not notice that the emperor was naked? Only one child declared it.

Current events have reminded me of the story.

I know many intelligent, well educated and kind people. America is full of them. So how can so many people not see that the emperor's newest clothes are naked falsehoods? Perhaps they fear peer pressure.

When candidate Trump promised to end illegal immigration, these people were outraged. They ask how can you deport people who come here illegally to get a better life? Anyone who gets here should be able to stay even if it encourages tens of millions to do the same.

People here illegally are no problem for the majority of us who are well educated or at least secure in our position. American lawyers, doctors, surgeons, nurses, social workers, psychologists, teachers and those in similar positions are not harmed by these undocumented workers. Illegals provide inexpensive workers for landscaping, construction, hotel and restaurant jobs, house cleaning, nannies and furniture moving, so what's the problem? They are seemingly not aware that those here without invitation take jobs away from the less educated, especially Americans of African and Latin American descent. 

Why didn't liberals come out say so? Perhaps, they feared being labeled racist, bigoted and /or xenophobia. These labels can be very destructive.

People were shocked when the President said that all three groups played a role in the riots in Charlottesville even though it was obvious that the alt right, the left and the police were to blame for what happened. Had the liberals just stayed home, this would not have happened. If the alt right hadn't been so disgraceful, it wouldn't have happened. When both groups got into a fight, the police should not have waited an hour to intervene. They were all responsible.

Why didn't liberals come out in agreement? Maybe they feared being labeled fascist or anti Semitic and uncaring for people of color.  

A football player, who was in his second season of sitting on the bench, decided to make a public statement. He disrespected the National Anthem by kneeling for it instead of standing proud. We knew that this player had every advantage in life but he was protesting the treatment of blacks. Not only was it unpatriotic, disrespectful and ungrateful, it was unnecessary. We had been talking about the problem and were addressing it two years before his protests. Since then the incidence of abuse by police has only increased. We applauded his effort without asking ourselves where do blacks have it better? Not in Africa or Latin America or Asia or most of European countries that have very few. What other country outside of Africa, has ever elected a black president or prime minister? We did twice. 

We had been aware of police misconduct that resulted in almost a dozen unnecessary fatalities in the last four years ( Chicago, South Carolina, Buffalo, Dallas, New Orleans etc). A few week-ends ago 12 people were killed by fellow blacks in Chicago. In Baltimore after the four officers were mistakenly blamed for the death of a 20 year old drug dealer who was resisting his 20th arrest of that year, police stayed out of the violent part of Baltimore for six weeks. During that time 56 people were murdered, 55 of them were black killed by other blacks. Nationwide though 12% of the population, the majority of murder victims are black as are 93% of their assailants. So the problem is much greater than police wrongdoing which is unacceptable for even one unlawful police shooting.  

Why didn't liberals and their mainstream media report all this? Maybe they were afraid of appearing to be racist, bigoted and/or insensitive.

Desperate to stop the appointment of an excellent juror because he is conservative, not super liberal, Democrats resorted to questionable accusations about something that allegedly happened 36 years.

A woman came out in the end of the process to claim that when the judge was 17, he got drunk and kissed and fondled her when she was 15. Not only does her story not hold-up - she couldn't remember how many others were involved; no one that she named to bear witness to the event said they never saw or heard anything; she couldn't remember where or when it happened or how she got where she couldn't remember, couldn't remember how she got home; and she was seen by one of her colleagues teaching someone how to fool the lie detector test - it is unimportant. If a teen got drunk and kissed someone long ago, it has nothing to do with his current status. Surely every Democratic senator knows this. American liberals know this, but they pretend that this is important. Even Dianne Feinstein, the only senator on the left who had any integrity abandoned it in the hope to get  re-lected so she can serve until she's 90.  

Maybe they fear being considered to be in favor of sexual abuse or of having no compassion with this woman seemingly traumatized by the experience. Just by coincidence, she has protested Trump for everything from stopping illegal immigration to potentially limiting or eliminating access to what have been legal abortions. 

After disgusting evidence proved that Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were sex abusers in the worst way, we started looking for others. And we found them - actors, comedians, congressmen and CEOs have been found guilty of sexual abuse by the court of public opinion. Women who were abused were encouraged to tell their stories. We seem to not realize that there are degrees of abuse from Cosby to CK to kissing or touching someone who didn't want to be when he was a minor. We don't seem able to differentiate the seriousness of the alleged accusation. Maybe we don't want to. Perhaps, the goal is to derail this Catholic conservative. The main fear seems to be having Roe versus Wade overturned. Since 1973 abortion was declared legal citing the First Amendment, the right to privacy, even though there is no mention of it in the amendment, we have had more than 50 million fetuses terminated. Thanks to Roe, women became free to have sex with anyone, at anytime, anywhere without fear of unintended pregnancy.  

Maybe that's why intelligent, well educated people pretend that the emperor is fully and beautifully clothed. 

Turning Off the News

A Harvard-educated health guru, Dr. Andrew Weil, who has been at the University of Arizona, gave a series of lectures on how to be healthy and happy. He told us the many steps we could take to lead a better life.

One of the first things he advised is for us to stop watching and reading the news. I couldn't understand how being well informed could cause stress and unhappiness.

I have been a columnist for more than a decade and watched the news in order to comment on the events. Up until recently, I watched the national news every night. I watched ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN (when in a waiting room with no other choices) and read the Huffpost, the NY Times, and the Washington Post. I prerecorded the T.V. news shows so I could watch a 30 minute program in about 10 or 15. Some of the news is the same in all the mainstream media, so it can be fast forwarded after seeing it once already. 

I have long realized that the mainstream media is focused on being sensational, superficial and subjective (read biased)

Every night there is a story of a plane crash with the occasional train, bus or ship disaster. It makes me want to stay home. Then there are the weather crises. They report on flooding, mudslides, drought, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and forest fires. There are reports of temperatures that are higher or lower than normal. It makes those of us in mild climates feel relieved that the problems are far away, and are willing to pay more for the privilege. These events provide the media with sensational and superficial reporting.

There is usually a human tragedy. A child is missing. A woman is found to have been raped and murdered. A couple is found to have kept children locked in closets, starving them or chaining them. This is being reported with greater frequency to remind us that there are monsters in the world, and to be sensational.

The news also includes scenes from the continuous wars in the Middle East. We see pictures of dead bodies, children suffering from a chemical weapon attack in Syria, years after President Obama forced Syria to get rid of all of them.  We see cities destroyed by bombings, people starving and brutally cruel terrorists.

But lately, before we watch the terrible news about our world, the media must start with a story about President Trump, with rarely, if ever, has a good thing to say about his administration. They seem to report only the negative and not the beneficial - this has all three journalistic objectives.

The latest political reports take the cake. They represent  the ultimate example the media's intent to be sensational, superficial and subjective. 

An excellent juror was opposed before he was even named. He was conservative and that was bad enough for the Democratic minority and the media. When he was named, he was questioned for long hours over several days. The opposition could not find any way to deny his appointment. At the last minute, a woman came out that she was kissed and fondled against her will 36 years ago when the accused judge was 17 years old. The attempt was transparent and unimportant. Anyone with a brain would take issue with such a claim which was denied by the judge and witnesses. Even if it were true, it is unimportant 36 years after the alleged fact. But then the media, the Democrats and a few confused Republicans pretended that this was important and should be further investigated, delaying the vote on the judge, and hoping to end his candidacy with not enough time to appoint another. Even the very liberal Supreme Court Judge, Ruth Ginsberg, objected to this treatment. The Democrats were disgraceful but not to the media, which found this sensational, superficial and subjective, their three journalistic goals.

So I am not watching or reading the news, (except for the Wall Street Journal).  It's too depressing, biased and therefore, objectionable.

Dr. Weil was right and I am finally taking his sage advice.  

  

Economic Equality

The word "equality" has been used often lately. Women should be paid the same for doing the same job as men regardless of tenure or excellence. So a woman who has been great at her job for ten years should get as little as a man who has been there, doing the same job for 10 days. 

Recently, the CEO of a very successful company, Salesforce, was asked if his company pays men more than women. He denied it but approved of an audit. The audit found that men are paid more for the same job. He immediately ordered his staff to ensure that everyone doing the same work should be paid the same. That would mean that a brand new employee should be paid as much as a tenured one. This was not considered.

One of the interesting claim for equality came for award winning economists. They coined the term "income inequality" to point out the wide gap between the rich and the poor. While it is obvious that the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor, the word "inequality" means "not equal." Does that mean we should all be economically equal? It hasn't even worked in communist countries. In China there are a billion living in poverty whereas hundreds if not thousands are very rich, even billionaires. The same is true in Russia, Venezuela, and North Korea. 

The gap is exaggerated by using pretax income of the well-to-do including stocks and stock options. They do not reduce the gap by subtracting all the taxes the successful pay. The top 10% of households pay more than 45% of all taxes collected, while 47% pay no federal income taxes.

The poor are identified without including transfer payments and benefits. They don't include the EIC, free breakfast and lunch programs in public schools, food stamps, Medicaid, SSI, CHIP, etc. The average family of four living below the poverty level gets $30,000 in benefits ($50,000 in Hawaii).

Many of us heard the term and accepted it as gospel without thinking about it; who would know better than economists?  They were right about the 2008 recession, weren't they? NO. But economists are very smart and we should just follow them.

While we complain that CEOs of multi billion dollar companies get as much as $10 million in salary and bonuses, we don't complain about entertainers and professional athletes who make much more for much less work. We are not heard to ask why do NFL players who play half of the season's 17 games make millions a year to do their favorite thing? We don't ask why do two or three excellent basketball players get $80 million a year to play 115 games. Why do wonderful actors like Jennifer Lawrence get $80 million a year?Even "celebrities" like the Kardashians, who display no special talent, make tens of millions each year.  

We are still upset that business CEOs get much less for much more work, available 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.

It's another reason to think for ourselves and not follow the mainstream media or the experts.  They are not always right and usually have a bias which affects their theories and reports.

We Can Forgive Them If We Like Them But Not If We Don't.

Back in the day we loved many of our presidents and were measured in our response to their misdeeds. 

We loved JFK and wept when we heard that he was dead. Many of us knew that he was seeing a lot of women and started an affair with a teenage summer intern, and we forgave him. 

When Nixon became President, we decided that we didn't like him and wanted him out, and wished him the worst. When many of us heard about Watergate, we were hoping (many of us on the Left don't pray) that he would leave office and fortunately for us he did.

Many loved Reagan. He was a charismatic, optimistic leader who led us out of a severe fiscal problems of mortgage rates at 16%, high unemployment and he got our American hostages released by Iran. But he made the rich richer by dramatically lowering their tax rate. He was a conservative, but many of us still appreciated him.

We liked Bill Clinton who was charming and bright. When we heard that he had had a 12 year long extramarital affair with a Little Rock celebrity, Gennifer Flowers, he and Hillary denied it but he had to finally acknowledge that it was true after tapes of them were revealed. We forgave him - good old boys will be boys. The same happened when accused of the sexual assault in Little Rock of Paula Jones. The Clintons denied the accusations, blaming the right for it. He later confessed to it and paid Paula $850,000. Then he was said to have had sex in the Oval Office with a 22 years old intern. He denied it while Hillary called her a bimbo not to be believed. He lied about it, but confessed that it was true when the intern produced a stained blue dress that had his DNA. But we still like him, but not so much his wife who the vast majority believe is dishonest. She went on to say in 2016 "When a woman says she was raped, believe her." But she hadn't.

Many of Americans generally liked George II, even though his administration was a disaster. He cut taxes for the rich causing a budget deficit leading to huge job losses and did not respond to warnings about an imminent terrorist attack on us with airplanes before 9/11. But he was gracious when visiting the site of the crash that killed almost 3,000 people. He got us into a pointless war in Iraq costing trillions of our taxes dollars. Iraq is still in chaos and ISIS was born in the midst of the disorder. The invasion gave birth to the "Arab Spring" with people from other Middle East countries seeing one dictator brought down thinking they can topple theirs and they did, sending their countries into turmoil. In Syria, a few hundred thousand Syrians protested the government and insisted that Assad step down. The resistance has been fighting for seven years. Their cities have been bombed and destroyed and more than 500,000 Syrians have lost their lives while even more lost their homes and were forced to flee and Assad is still in power. We didn't hate George II, we blamed his advisors, especially the evil Cheney and his team. By the time he left office, the economy was in shambles, businesses were going bankrupt, and people were losing their homes because of the rising unemployment. We still think that he was a nice, just a little over his head.

We elected Barack Obama who we liked. We still do. He saved the auto industry and the economy. He ensured that we got all the money that we gave to banks and businesses in the weak economy, plus interest. He reduced our troops in Afghanistan fighting another pointless war. He did the same in Iraq. He had great ideas like raising the minimum wage and making community college free. This is a much better idea than Bernie's free four year college tuition for everyone.

We forgive him for fanning the flames of racial conflict. He supported Black Lives Matter, which many believe is a a racist and anti police group that was started under the mistaken impression that a young 6'5" recent high school football player was unarmed and had his hands up when shot by a police officer. That turned out to be untrue. 

We believed when he said that diversity made this country great. . Mr. Obama was a globalist with the ultimate goal of ending nations and having one great global economy. 

While we forgive him his errors, we don't forgive his first Secretary of State. She further damaged our relationship with Russia and was a cheerleader for Muslims who wanted to overthrow their government. While we helped kill the leader of Libya, we helped the nation become disorganized and deadly. She ignored pleas for more security at our embassy in Bengazi and then lied about the death of four, including the Ambassador, saying it was a spontaneous attack that could not have been anticipated.

We now have our 45th President. We realized immediately that we didn't like him. He was insulting, rude, and a narcissist who doesn't always get his facts straight or find less provocative ways of expressing himself. He wanted to build a wall and promised that Mexico will pay for it. He said that some illegals are murderers, rapists, drug smugglers and criminals of a different stripe. We didn't like that. He could have said we want to stop illegal immigration by building a wall. He could have cited the billions we spend each year on illegal immigration and didn't mention that those who work illegally are taking jobs away from some Americans of African or Latin American heritage, who need the jobs most. 

We ignore many of his accomplishments because we don't like him and want him to fail even if it hurts the country. He has appointed an excellent Supreme Court justice, simplified the tax code eliminating most itemized deductions, lowered tax brackets and increased the standard deduction. It will save most of us hundreds or thousands each year. He lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% stimulating hiring and expansion while bringing businesses back to America or getting them to stay here.

He did not micro manage the military in its decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan and in our fight against ISIS. He passed a budget that both parties approved of. When he threatened North Korea, we thought him mad. While previous presidents complained about Korea, they never did enough to stop the North from making missiles and nuclear war heads. Trump got all nations to stop doing business with the country and promised to annihilate the country if a missile lands on American soil. North Korea capitulated and signed an agreement with Trump to denuclearize. Many of us hope that Trump does not get the Nobel Peace Prize for that. 

When he threatened tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada, the EU and especially China, we were worried. They are now willing to change their unfair trade practices and our steel and aluminum businesses are now flourishing. His predecessors complained about unfair trade policies but they did nothing about it. 

He withdrew from the Iran agreement since they are still making missiles and enriching uranium. They were given $100 billion in the agreement which gave them money to fight in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. 

He reduced the contribution we make to NATO and the U.N. We were paying 25% of these budgets to protect Europe or to vote on biased and/or meaningless gestures in the U.N. Their votes on Israel, Syria or the Russian invasion of Crimea come to mind.

While in office the stock market has gone up 10,000 points and unemployment rates are down to 3.8%, the lowest in at least 18 years. Unemployment numbers are also going down to record lows for minorities and summer youth as Trump helped create more jobs.

He began work on changing, improving the failed ACA. He is getting drug companies  to reduce the cost of expensive drugs.

His slogan was America and Americans first. What country doesn't feel the same? But we blamed him for going against globalism which ultimately makes open borders and even more diversity, changing our culture, values, beliefs and traditions - country.  

What will we think if he accomplishes all of these improvements? If North Korea destroys its nuclear program; if Iran agrees to changes in the agreement; if China and the EU level the trade playing field; if the stock market keeps going higher; if we find that we are paying much less in taxes; if unemployment goes even lower to below 3.8% when 5.5% is considered full employment. If he is able to reform the ACA and have prescription costs for life saving drugs Would we ever appreciate his work? No! We don't like him and neither does the entire mainstream media (not including the Wall Street Journal). They can't all be wrong.

Now many of us are hoping that something will come of this two year investigation of collusion with the Russians. When first claimed by HRC, it was ridiculed, even by the New York Times, and it is still ridiculous. It has still not been proven, but the Special Prosecutor is determined to find something on Trump, if only to avenge the firing of his good friend and successor.

Can we all continue to dislike him regardless of his accomplishments? Yes, always.

Is Separate Not Equal?

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that separate schools based on race were not, could not, be equal. 

The issue was unfair educational opportunity for Americans of African or Latin American heritage. The most famous confrontation was when the governor of Arkansas would not let a few black students enter and attend the all-white Central High. President Eisenhower sent federal troops to escort these brave souls to class. Very soon more blacks came and more whites left. Private schools were springing up in Little Rock. Today Central High is now more than 60% black and 29% white.  

Several years ago, a Harvard educator named Canada, started a school in Harlem. It was mainly for black students. They wore school uniforms and had longer school years. They were separate but weren't they equal? Schools like his are starting in other parts of the country with the goal of giving black students in a black school with black teachers to address this population's special social and educational needs. The waiting list of parents wanting to enroll their children is usually quite long.

There are some excellent black universities. Are their students losing out?

This court decision led to the imposition of affirmative action programs. Students in public schools were bused to far away locations, usually affluent neighborhoods for the poor, while white students were bused into poor neighborhoods. Colleges had to set up affirmative action policies with quotas which gave applicants of a protected class much more chance of getting in. Lawsuits were filed by some white applicants and the court ruled that these programs unfairly discriminated against those in neither protected class.

This led to a new rational. Colleges weren't discriminating to comply with affirmative action, they were making their schools more diverse. Diversity became more important than school standards, grade point averages, SAT scores, study habits and potential. 

Our former President, a globalist, embraced the notion of the value of diversity. He felt that everything should have a variety of people from different backgrounds, even if they're from different countries and cultures. He expanded immigration, legal, and illegal.

What about diversity in professional sports? How many Latinos, Asians or Jews are in the NFL and NBA?  Are these sports harmed by not having a diverse population?  Professional sports teams want to get the best athletes no matter what their cultural background.

Now Asian applicants to Harvard are suing saying that Harvard discriminates against them and for some other minorities. A study showed that a black candidate is many times more likely to get in than an Asian, though the Asian applicants had much better grades and scores.

A report that was in the Wall Street journal, and probably not in the mainstream media, reported that Asians with similar scores as blacks have a 20+% chance of being accepted while a person of African heritage has a 95%. The media rather said that Asians are only 5% of American residents but are enrolled about 20%. Here again we have quotas to justify unfair treatment. If the top Harvard 40% of applicants are Asian then they should admitted. 

So what?

The result has been a decline in educational standards meaning that college grads are less educated and less prepared for a successful future. A college degree today is equal to what a high school diploma was 50 years ago. Half of all college graduates work at jobs that do not require a degree. This decline is also seen in high school education with many graduates not educated enough to go to college before taking several remedial courses to get an inferior education in college as well, since standards have been lowered.

You might ask, what's wrong with lower educational standards?

It makes a country's population that doesn't work well or think well.  That leads to being less able to make intelligent consumer and political decisions. Unable to think deeply means that people will act out of emotion rather than intellect. We become driven by a herd/ heard mentality. If we hear that the group we like approves of something or someone, we do too. 

The irony is that diversity is unavoidable. Some of us are smart, some are very attractive. Some are tall some are short, some are fat and some are skinny. Look at the diversity in love and career preferences. How many men are in love with the same woman, three out of 120 million American men? How many of us wanted to be a lawyer, a dentist, a heart surgeon, a philosophy professor, or a waiter, plumber, farmer, businessman, police officer, a firefighter or an airline steward? Some of us did; and we work in those fields. But the vast majority of us wouldn't think to do the other jobs or professions. Why? Because we are so diverse.


So is forced diversity needed or helpful? 

Hearing From Those Who Can't

There are almost 37.5 million Americans who are hard of hearing (or in P.C., auditorially challenged). They have no voice or can't hear it. No one has come out with issues that affect those who have trouble hearing. We are now.

First, is the need to speak clearly, slowly and loudly. It is a good way to communicate even to people who have perfect hearing.Some talk like this: we'vebeentryingtocontactyou. Please call 123-4something something inaudible. 

Hearing challenged people speak slowly, loudly and clearly anyway perhaps so they too can hear what they're saying. Sometimes it may help telling the caller right away that you need them to speak loudly, clearly and slowly.

Television listening is another obstacle. Most hearing impaired cannot hear the words of the program they're watching; they need closed captioning, but it  must be simultaneous with the show. Some seem to wait a few seconds making the CC reader miss the show while trying to find out what has already been said. Sometimes the CC delay causes the reader to speed read with the broadcaster trying to catch up by being real fast. The alternative problem is that the system is so far behind the action that it just gives up and disregards the rest of the verbiage. 

The other problem with them hearing T.V. shows is when the show plays music over the dialogue. It is an insult to the actors, the director, the writers and the viewers. It's as though the acting, directing and writing do not reveal enough so music is needed to set the tone. It's a terrible idea and makes hearing the dialogue very challenging.

Then there are the interpersonal communications.  Names seem to be the hardest to hear clearly and the hearing challenged must ask to have it repeated several times. Perhaps this population should wear a button that says "hard of hearing, please say the name real slowly or spell it,"or "ask me about my vow of silence."

Those with auditory problems sometimes need to supplement their hearing by seeing the other person's face so that they can read their lips, like President George, senior, who said "read my lips, no new taxes." Perhaps he was being considerate of Americans who find hearing difficult. When people turn away, showing  their backs rather than their faces, they can't be heard. This is a variation of "don't talk behind my back" to "don't talk behind your back."

Some of us were raised to always look the person in the eye when  speaking even to those who hear clearly. It's still a good idea that many of us were never apparently taught.

The hearing impaired also have problems hearing a song nearby as in a restaurant or a neighbor's home and just hear the base notes which ofttimes are a repetitious, annoying thumping. If you live next door to the hard of hearing, you should stop playing terrible music loud enough so neighbors don't have hear it (playing Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Leonard Cohen or Joan Baez is fine). 

Those who have trouble hearing should wear hearing aids, but they are terrible. They require the wearers to stuff them in their ears, the batteries need to be changed often, like once a week, and batteries are not cheap. Implants would be preferable but they need to have their battery changed too, but the implant must be removed to do so. And hearing aids are very expensive; they start at about $5000 for a matching set and they sometimes do not really do the job, especially when talking on the phone.

Also,we must be patient with those so afflicted who ask us to repeat what was just said. It might happen two or three times. Note that each additional restatement takes seconds. Surely we have the time.

So please hear from those who can't. Remember, this - some day it could happen to you.