Third Millenium Metaphysics A G-d Atheists Can Believe In.

Metaphysics is the study of reality. It is probably the precursor of physics, the study of the material world.

The metaphysical theory to be presented here is merely a reiteration of myths and theories from the past 3,000 years using modern day language.

The Hindu and Buddhist mystics claimed that this reality is an illusion. How could that be?

The Greek, Roman and Hindu gods were eternal but came to earth as normal beings who were subject to death.

Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and that he was part of the holy trinity of G-d. Jesus was immortal but came to earth as a human and suffered what finite beings do. He died a painful death but is believed to still exist as an infinite immortal being.

In 1975 a mathematician proved the existence of fractals in every living thing. Fractals are geometric shapes in everything and are infinite. So the finite is also infinite.

The Hindu mystics describe the nature of G-d as Sat, Chit, Ananda. Sat is truth, Chit is consciousness and Ananda is joy.

Those who study the Kaballah believe that G-d thinks the universe. It is the product of G-d's infinite consciousness.  They also believe that not a single leaf falls that G-d did not intend.

A Zen mystic named Suzuki - Roshi claimed that there is only infinite consciousness but there is also the finite.  The Buddhists refer to big minds and small minds (infinite consciousness and finite consciousness.) Hindu mystics say Atman is Brahman - the individual soul and the universal soul are one. The Roshi also said that we meditate (zazen) we do it to work toward enlightenment but are enlightened while in deep meditation. There is no sense of self. The mind is still, so only the infinite (big mind) is available.

Jewish mystics believe that we have both an infinite soul and a finite one - the spark of the divine or the G-dly soul and the other the animal soul. The divine (infinite consciousness) must rule the animal soul.

There is a much quoted Zen koan:  if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Bishop Berkeley, 18th century metaphysician and Empiricist theorized that nothing can exist without consciousness. It was called "immaterialism" or later "subjective idealism." He was challenged by those asking how does a fire keep burning when no one is present to see it. He responded that G-d was watching it.

Those who believe in reincarnation believe that while the body is finite, the soul is infinite.

So what does this all mean in modern terms?

Today's language allows us to better describe the nature of reality simply and clearly -  one that agrees with all of these spiritual realizations.

Here is one interpretation:

Everything is and has consciousness - infinite and finite. Nothing preceded infinite consciousness. The tree falls in the forest does not exist without consciousness - infinite consciousness. Since everything is consciousness, the finite world is a product of consciousness like characters in a dream. Unlike characters in our dreams, living things both are and have  consciousness. We are objects of consciousness as well as subjects in the finite world.

That means that we have two different basic drives, one led by love, because we are infinite and love is the unifying force and the other led by fear, since we are finite. We have a beginning and end. We will suffer from many forms of entropy. We are separate and must survive.

We are driven by love, fostering intrinsic motivation - loving what we are doing. We do something for its own sake.

Since we are finite, we do things because that we feel we have to in order to survive. We work to earn money to pay our bills. We eat food to nourish the body.

The goal then could be to do everything as a means to an end - ( a need), and an end in itself - (a want.)   If we love to eat and do it whether we are hungry or not, we will get fat. If we don't enjoy eating the food that is available but must in order to survive, we eat less and have no pleasure in it. If we eat because and when we have to and love the food we eat, we will be more able to maintain a healthy diet.

When we pray to the Creator, we are praying to infinite consciousness of which we are a part. The
 G-d in us hears our prayers.

How does this metaphysical theory answer the question "Is there free will?" Physicists generally do not believe there is free will, that everything is a piece in the cosmic puzzle. Hindus and Buddhists believe that we are predetermined by karma from past lives. Jewish mystics believe that everything is a product of G-d's consciousness. He said "let there be light." He wasn't talking to anyone because there was no one to listen. Our only free will is our belief in G-d.  Jesus believed that this belief is only by the grace of G-d.

Yet all religions exist on the thesis that there is free will. It's what makes us human. Since we are infinite, part of universal order, we have no free will. Since were are finite beings, we seem to make independent choices - we can be right or wrong.  I chose to write this and you chose to read it.

But if we are infinite as well as finite, what happens when we die?

We lose our finite body and maintain our infinite soul.  That soul reincarnates to be part of another finite reality. The soul brings its attributes to the new form. Edgar Casey, a mystic who explained the process, suggested that we usually incarnate in alternate genders. If in the past we instead came back as male in several consecutive incarnations and are then born female, the soul will still identify itself with the former gender and feels a strong male influence. This explains transgenders. They are born as one gender but identify with the other. Those with fewer consecutive incarnations in one gender could become homosexual. They still identify with the past gender and want to act as though they still were.

Reincarnation also explains child prodigies. Why does a three-year-old play the piano so well? Why does a five-year-old know advanced math or science? Because their souls carry those talents into their  new incarnation and carries other attributes like curiosity and compassion but also accounts for our deepest fears and our worst behavior.

Why is there evil and destruction in our finite world?

Entropy. It is the disorganization of a specific finite consciousness - physical or mental. Without entropy, nothing would ever end. We would have no motivation to work or protect our selves because  no matter what, everything that is would always be. We would know no fear. We would not need to have armies because diplomacy would keep this world relationship organized. We would need no police, lawyers, judges, hospitals, doctors, psychologists, social workers or firefighters because there would be no crime, illness to cure or fires to extinguish.

Heaven has no entropy because there is no time or space there. Everything in heaven in eternal, eternally now.

This then is a third millenium attempt to update of three past millennia of metaphysical theory and mythology.
                                                                                                                                            

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

During my career in city government I met people who are very liberal and those who are very conservative. I still get Facebook posts from liberal and conservative acquaintances. Both groups have become more extreme. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." The further right we go, the further left others go.

When conservatives came to power, many are very conservative while in response liberals have become more liberal. So how are they really different?

It seems that liberals think with their hearts while conservatives feel with their minds. If liberals find underdogs in need, they want to do everything they can to help, regardless of the cost the many victims of our country's system. During the recession, some liberals wanted the unemployed to get payments until they ever find a job. The former Speaker of the House told us that every dollar we spend on the unemployed creates $1.50  to our economy. If that were true, shouldn't we all get extra money since it doesn't seem to cost anything?

Conservatives are for the top dogs. It is they who will create jobs and improve the situation for low income workers, they say. Conservatives feel that people should be held responsible by being more self reliant and will become so if their social services like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Food Stamp benefits are decreased. It should be the survival of the fittest.

Those further to the left are the less likely to say they want anyone to have a gun or rifle, if only the 300 million firearms held by Americans could be eliminated. Those more moderate want an end to bump stocks, assault weapons, have the minimum age to purchase firearms raised to 21, improve background checks limit magazines (clips) to a certain number, like 10 and improve mental health services.

The strict conservatives, like those loyal to the NRA, want to keep their weapons including assault weapons, saying we should improve our mental health system, not assault their Second Amendment Rights. Their slogan has been "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." They feel that any change in our gun policy is a slippery slope toward banning all firearms.

Liberals want open borders and that for all those here illegally should be given a path to citizenship. The people come here because they can no longer bear living in their beloved country. They should be welcomed with open arms and provided with housing, food subsidies, medical coverage, education, and given a bit of an advantage in hiring over Americans. They cite a line from a poem on the Statue of Liberty written by a young poet as though it was official government policy or that it should be. They feel good about their generosity without realizing that this open door policy will inspire millions to come here illegally hoping for the American dream. They will take entry level jobs like gardening, housekeeping, furniture moving, care of young children, farming, construction work, and hotel and restaurant work. Liberals with a college or even a professional degree see no problem with our uninvited guests because there will be no competition for their own jobs. They must feel hiring illegals is an act of compassion and a way to get their services for rock bottom prices. They don't seem to realize that the people they are hurting are those with no more than a high school diploma and are most likely to be minorities, the left's favorite underdogs. We have more than 600,000 homeless. We have 40 million American who live below the poverty level (before getting government subsidies). Why can't we help are own first?

Strict conservatives want the southern border made impenetrable, and have those here without documentation deported. They want to not admit more refugees and to limit visas to half of what they are now, get rid of the lottery system and limit those who can be sponsored to come to just spouses and children instead to anyone even distantly related in what is "chain migration." Some want the 14th Amendment amended to end birthright citizenship, denying it to those here illegally who want an anchor to keep them from being deported. "How can people be deported if they have American born children,"they ask as though families don't usually stay together when moving to different states and different countries.

Liberals want the Affordable Care Act to remain with just minor adjustments even though it is a failed program. Those more liberal favor a single payer system without realizing the costs and the many downsides. There are now about 30 million Americans who want coverage. So for them, instead of finding ways of helping them by not only making it voluntary, as it now is, and to let insurers reject anyone for medical reasons. Those denied coverage and those in the states that refused to expand Medicaid would be given the "public option" which would be federal program with a share of cost based on income. Private and public providers should also offer a more limited coverage including necessary hospitalization, office visits, medical supplies like medicine, and lab work. These are the services most people need covered. We could stop giving $8 billion in subsidies to private insurers to cover their losses due to serious medical conditions. The $100 billion fraud and waste each year could be dramatically reduced. The liberals know this as did candidate Obama but perhaps they think that when the ACA completely falls apart people might be ready to accept single payer healthcare.

Conservatives want only the pre-ACA system where those with medical conditions were charged more than were healthy applicants.

It seems that the farther left people are the less likely to believe in religion or the Creator. They believe that it is the State which must grant our wishes. They applaud religious, sexual and ethnic diversity reminding us that it made our country great. They support getting more refugees who subjugate women, detest members of the LGBTQ community, beliefs that we usually don't tolerate. They even support people who want to change their gender to use restrooms and showers with those who have not changed their gender identification. They want no employer or business to refuse service or employment to transgenders.

Those on the ultra right are more likely to be very religious, usually Protestant. They believe that being gay, bisexual, transgender or atheistic is a sin. Gay marriage is unacceptable.  People with religious beliefs should be able to deny service to anyone or group that violates their beliefs. They don't think that diversity is a necessary road to American success. They point out this was and still should be a Christian nation. Our people should share out beliefs and values.

The liberals support free speech as long as they agree with it. U.C. Berkeley, the successful advocate of free speech in the '60s, rioted recently when students heard that two conservatives were invited to speak. Those who objected were not being forced to attend but they wanted no one to hear this alternative view. They rioted and damaged campus buildings while the school's liberal police force stood by and watched. The left has found a new way to limit free speech that conflicts with their values - they label those who disagree with them in order invalidate their claims. They label some haters and they hate the haters. They label some intolerant and are intolerant of them. The recent most popular labels are misogynist, racist, and Xenophobe but they ignore those characteristics when one of their own transgresses. Those accused have a modern day scarlet letter and are available for abuse.

The conservatives realize there are differing opinions but maintain that those on the left are bleeding hearts who misrepresent the news to reflect their bias. They don't realize that conservative commentators also skew the truth to reflect their biases.

The far left liberals want to judge the actions and opinions of our famous political figures by current standards rather than understanding how it was considered back then. They want all symbols and statues of those who violated these current standards. Some had slaves, some led an unsuccessful attempt to secede from the Union in part because they wanted to keep slavery. Statues of Confederate generals must be torn down even though they have been there for as long as 100 years. Princeton students wanted the name of the past president and their own school's president, Woodrow Wilson, to be removed from campus. He said or did something that by today's standards would be unacceptable. The school refused to comply. Some students wanted the term "dorm master" to be changed because it might offend some people. They did not ask to have the Master's degree nor terms like "chess master," master builder, mastering and so on changed. So we should rename every building, state or city name including the streets with names like Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and even Teddy Roosevelt who did not consider Americans of African descent equal to those of European descent. Rename Washington, D.C., the state of the same name, all schools that bear these names and so for all these former American heroes. They want to rename Columbus because he invaded what is now America and caused many to be killed. Discovering America was not enough.

Those on the right want to preserve history. They fight against those who want to tear down every statue of someone who did more for this country than they ever will. They don't blame these historical figures for what are now transgressions. They look to early America with pride and fear that our culture's values, beliefs, and traditions are eroding. They are considered "what supremacists" by those who disagree with their position.

The rare moderate sees a middle path through these conflicting views. These people think with their minds and feel with their hearts and by so doing can solve most of our problems be they homelessness, poverty, crime, inadequate education, income disparity, free speech, and immigration -  legal and illegal, compassionately and practical, objective, not biased.

Who should be held responsible?

Where are the moderates when we need them? 

Who Should Be Held Responsible?

Since the recent past, there seems to be confusion as to who should be held responsible.

 A few years ago, a woman brought her four-year-old and two year-old children to a water park. She let them enjoy the water park on their own. The two year old got into the water that has artificial waves. Her sibling was there to supervise. The young one drowned. The mother sued.

A young man committed mass murder. This has become a frequent event. The shooter is responsible but what could have prevented them? A wife of a mass assassin lived with him. He had all kinds of weapons. Should she should have called the police and stopped him? Another school shooter was raised by a mother who decided that her son could overcome his mental challenges by learning to shoot guns. He killed her first and then went on a rampage. The families of the victims could not sue his family because they were dead, so they tried to sue that gun manufacturer saying it was their fault because they make guns that were responsible for their childrens' death.

Several shooters were known to have severe psychological problems but those who knew didn't tell police because his danger was confidential. Schools knew about the shooters in several cases but tried counseling rather than alerting the authorities.

A group that represents 13% of the U.S. population accounts for the majority of homicide victims each year and are killed by their own people. We are told that the shooters are not responsible either because they had psychological problems, or they are still mad that their ancestors might have been slaves more than 300 years ago and that they were raised by single mothers. Are the mothers responsible or are the absent fathers? Now 74% of that population is raised by a single mother. 

What about the rest of the world? Why do those in Mexico and Central American countries live in poverty? Is it the parents' fault for having more children than they possibly afford or is it the Spanish who ruled Mexico from 1520 to the early 1800s. It's been 200 years of independence. Was it the Mexican government's fault for massive corruption and mismanagement? Is the U.S. to blame because some citizens buy drugs from Mexico? 

Why is Africa so poor? Is it because they were occupied for many years by European nations? They left a long time ago. Or is it that they sold most of their slaves to the U.S. at least 200 years ago and now are down to only 600,000 slaves. Is it the lack of slaves that causes widespread poverty, corruption and violence or could it be that Africans have some responsiblity for their present condition? 

Can India still blame the English for occupying their country until 70 years ago or is part of the problem that people are having more kids than they can afford and that girls do not get enough education?

What about problems in the Middle East? Is the Middle East so filled with dictators or is it because that has made them more engaged in violence as they are in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt etc. Should the U.S, the world's 911, have done more to effect change in this countries or did we do too much? 

We invaded Iraq because we felt that the leader did not share our values. That created the Arab Spring. Populations in each of these Arab countries revolted. Now Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan are failed states with no leadership and the birthplace of ISIS. In Syria, hundreds of thousands of Syria's population demonstrated insisting that their longtime leader step down, possibly knowing this would not happen without violence. Now 400,000 thousand Syrians have died and 400,000 are suffering after losing their homes and being surrounded by troops killing each other as best they can. Should America have done more or did we do too much?

Who takes responsibility for all these problems and do we even dare think about it? If those who won't take responsibility and blame outside influences that occurred as many as hundreds of years ago, how will situations improve?  

Truth and Beauty

About 200 years ago, a poet named John Keats wrote a poem titled “Ode to a Grecian Urn.” The long poem ends with “Beauty is truth, truth is beauty. That is all ye know on earth, all ye need to know.”

About 40 years ago, a young American spiritual leader named Steven Gaskin, proclaimed that beauty, truth, love, joy, and oneness are simply different sides of G-d. Gaskin went on to lead a group of mandala covered buses filled with followers to start a commune in the country.

How many of us believe what Keats and Gaskin did about truth and beauty?

Marie Kondo has published a book advising us to simplify our lives by getting rid of all our possessions that do not bring us joy and beauty.

How many of us keep only that which brings us joy by being something beautiful that we love?

How many of us have lived too long not thinking we need truth or beauty in our lives to experience joy?

Where do we find truth today in our world of political correctness born of a sincere desire to do and be good? We look for it in our political leaders. We recently had the major candidates of our two parties running for President while the majority of voters did not think that they were telling the truth and had a lot of reason to think so. 

We look to the fourth estate to work hard to find and present the truth to its readers. We find that too often journalists are motivated to present the sensational more than the actual, the partial rather than the whole story. The truth gets lost in the translation.

The mainstream media is on a mission and it isn’t about revealing the truth but rather about creating impressions that reinforce biases and effect change. That is a proper function for opinion columns that have an important place in journalism, but not for straight news reports. The examples are numerous.

The media was excited about what was called stand-your-ground case gone bad in Florida a few years ago. We were told that a young, unarmed teenager was shot in the back in what was being called a stand-your-ground that showed what was wrong with the Florida law that allowed someone to shoot and kill another if he felt his life was threatened. 

After months of daily news coverage and destruction of the accused’s life, the killer was finally vindicated. Police photos that were taken shortly after the shooting showed that the accused had a broken nose and the back of his head was covered in blood. The murder victim only had bruises on his knuckles from beating the older man. The teen was shot in the chest at close range not in the back while walking away. A jury, including six mothers, found the defendant innocent, having killed in self defense. All this was forensic evidence of self defense was known to police moments after the event. 

The media had access to this evidence but chose not to seek or share it. The story would not be sensational and whatever point was wanted would not be made. We didn’t get the truth. The media was very quiet about the shooter's innocence. So to this day, the person who killed in self defense is the villain and the teen who died while trying to kill an older, smaller man because the man asked him a question, is still a martyr. 

Something similar happened a few years ago. A town was up at arms because they thought that a police officer killed an innocent teen. We were told that the young, six foot-five inch former high school football player had his hands up and was surrendering when he was shot and killed. After a three month grand jury investigation, the officer was found not guilty. The forensic evidence and the honest testimony of a few residents revealed that the story about there being hands up in surrender was an absolute lie. The U.S.Attorney General investigated and also found the officer innocent. The residents violently rioted for four months looting and sometimes totally destroying businesses. The media showed the riots almost every day and seemed to revel in them. The media was quiet about the fact that the officer was clearly innocent.  

But the most glaring instance of a dishonest mainstream media is its handling of the 2016 Presidential election. 

 I have claimed that the mainstream media is sensationalist, superficial and subjective. All three characteristics also make it dishonest. In order to be sensational, the issue needs to be presented in black and white. It needs to be superficial. And choosing what to make sensational, journalists become subjective, deciding what to cover and what to ignore. Ignoring important stories or details of a story is dishonest.

In this latest example of American journalism at work, we saw media’s subjectivity trumping and causing the sensational and superficial.

The people in the mainstream media decided early and nakedly that they favored one presidential candidate over the other and that they would use their power to make their candidate victorious. They failed, but they keep trying coming out with negative issues to blame the President for. The didn't want him to be President and they still don't. If they were truthful they would start issue with an admittance that they will write whatever is negative about him, regardless.

What about beauty? It is an end in itself as well as a means? 

When we dress do we wear clothes that we love because of their beauty or wear just anything that is easily available? The tend now unbelievably is to buy ripped and dirty jeans for high prices. When we choose a home, do we love the place for its beauty or is it just a place to live in? When choosing a car do we choose one that we consider beautiful or whatever is available in our price range? And why do people wear body piercing in their nose and lips? 

 Are American cars still beautiful?

I grew up in the eartly 1950s. American cars were beautiful, from 1953 on all the way to 1979. Every August, I would go to the dealerships and check out the latest models which were unique and always changing from year to year. We had the Thunderbird, Corvette, Cadillac,  Lincoln Continental, Buick, especially 1953, and other great American cars. People bought cars based in large part on beauty. What has happened?

Are today’s American cars beautiful, unique or changing yearly? Can we tell the difference between a Chevy or a Kia?

America seems to have given up on competing in the family car business. Name an American car that you would buy at least in part for its beauty - not counting the Tesla. We’re not talking pick-up trucks and SUVs. 

Now name five foreign cars that appeal to your aesthetic.  

I would name the VW, Audi , Mazda, BMW, Mercedes, Accura and Lexis (seven cars) to name a few. Some of these foreign makes include several desirable models like VW with its Beetle, Golf, Jetta station wagon, and the CC also the Audi A3, Audi A4. To me they are beautiful not just something to drive to get somewhere. They are a means to an end but should also be ends in themselves - if we love them.

Look at our motorcycles. While Hartlery Davidson has kept the faith, most foreign manufacturers have sacrificed beauty for function. The BMW of the 60s was regal. It was usually black with white striping. It was elegant and quiet. Today's version is neither. Like so many other motorcycles, it looks today more like an erector set than a motorcycle. 

And what about hair styles? Young women used to do whatever was necessary to have a hairstyle that looked best on them. Today, I see many women apparently unwilling to make this effort, wear their hair in a bun atop their head or scrunced up on the back of their head. Some seem to not even brush their hair wearing it as it dried naturally. 

And then there are the bizarre hairstyles. Some people choose to have their hair dyed in unnatural colors like pink and purple. There are the men who wear Mohawks, shave their heads, or wear dreadlocks or braided hair down to their shoulders. Does anyone think that those styles are really attractive and make the wearers look their best? Some men and women are considerate enough to wear their hair short and manageable and, not amazingly, also look really good.  Other women have enough pride to take the time to make their hairdo complement the face and not cover it with unruly hair. Remember when professional athletes wore short hair and were clean shaven?  Nowadays it seems to be "anything goes."

Truth still is beauty, beauty is truth. 

  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

  

New Laws That Will Never Happen but Should.

If I were in charge of this country I would make the following laws mindful that if I never become the one in charge, they will never happen.

Make it a law that every package of consumer goods like milk, cheese, sauces, etc. be easy to open and does not require a pair of scissors. 

Make it a law that no movie or T.V. show can play background music during dialogue.

Eliminate the penny and nickel; they cost more to make than they're worth, no one uses them anymore. Billing will be made with 10 cent increments, not one or five.

Eliminate robo calls by making it easier to avoid them and harder for businesses to get away with them without paying a huge fine.

Change the H-1B to never allow a person from another country come and replace any American worker no matter how much they make. Currently American employees who make more than $60,000 can be replaced.

Forbid businesses to use automated answering systems that try to get you to tell the computer rather than a human what the reason for the call is and then try to answer questions. More people need to be hired to answer the calls. Using the computerized system would be OK as long as it is used only to properly direct the call - as in press "1" for shoes, "2" for clothing, etc.

Discourage all outsourcing and tell foreign manufacturers that they must produce their products for Americans in America and U.S. manufacturers will make their products near to its foreign consumers.

End illegal immigration by making entry next to impossible and sending all those who get through back to their home countries. Those wishing asylum must do so in an American embassy or consulate in their native land.

Make it possible for private insurers to reject any applicant for medical reasons. Those denied coverage would then be eligible to the "public option"- a share-of-cost federal program which would also cover those in states that did not extend Medicaid. We would stop paying insurers $7 billion a year to cover their losses because of medical needy applicants. I would also crack down on Medicare/caid fraud and waste which is estimated to be $100 billion a year. 

Reduce or eliminate foreign aid to countries that do not use it to improve conditions but rather to be kept by their leaders or to be used for destructive purposes.

Change the tax code to make the standard deduction of $40,000 for families, $20,000 for single filers, except for self employment and corporate returns. All sources of income would be equally taxable. Have only six brackets from 10% to 35%. Those making $500,000 would pay a straight 30%, Those making $1 million or more would pay a straight 35% with no standard deduction. This would make filing so easy that it could be done in minutes and the overworked IRS would only focus on self employment and corporate taxes.

End football, boxing and fraternities. The first two are too violent and with too many injuries, especially to the brain and to the spouses. Fraternities are elitist and exist for only one reason: to have parties to get coeds, preferably, sorority girls, to succumb to the boys' advances. We would still have baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis, hockey (without the fighting) and lacrosse. No other country has a football league and yet the people have survived and found different ways to spend their spare time. This would be one of the most controversial changes.







  

What Has the Trump Presidency Done?

Most people and the mainstream media don't like President Trump. He appears to be narcissistic and dishonest. He boasts about himself, something none of us appreciate. He insults people, the media and the system. He is neither diplomatic or politically correct. But what has he proposed?

He promised to fix the flawed Affordable Care Act. He was only able to eliminate the mandatory enrollment of individuals who do not have medical coverage. He was unable to get Congress to make more changes.

He promised to simplify the tax code. The Congress came close. They approved a standard deduction of $15,000/$30,000 meaning more people will pay less in taxes while abandoning the itemized deductions. I would have a $20,000/$40,000 standard deduction and no itemized deductions. Those earning $1 million or more would pay a straight 35% and all sources of income (e.g. dividends, interest, earned income, etc.) would be treated as equally taxable. The change that passed was a start.

He promised to get us out of the trade agreements which are unfavorable to the U.S. interest. He has by eliminating the Pacific plan and getting the NAFTA to be improved.

He promised to bring manufacturing back to America with lower tax rates and higher tariffs. Business investment and the resultant, added employment opportunities have greatly improved in the past year. The former administration blamed outsourcing on automation. Trump has proved them wrong.

He promised to get us out of being the nation builder and the world's 911. We are still in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, however. He questioned the share we pay for NATO and the U.N.  Adjustments are now being made in both.

He promised to get rid of ISIS. In cooperation with others, ISIS is gone, except online.

He promised to put an end to illegal immigration, in part by building a wall on our southern border. He is now trying to get $25 billion to pay for construction. He said that he would deport those committing crimes and those who arrived recently. Is he wrong to want to protect our borders and respect our immigration policy?

He also wants to limit chain migration in which a large number of relatives can get visas to come here. He wants to limit it to spouses and their children. And he wants a merit based immigration system instead of the current lottery. Is he wrong?

Unfortunately, he wants to expand our coal and oil production. He wants to drill in Alaska and along the coast, and has approved the pipeline from Canada through the states. Few of us would agree with this policy.

While the President has given us all some senseless or regretable comments and with the mainstream media highlighting his faux pas and comments, we have a bad opinion of him and therefore his policies. 

We have good reason to dislike him. But is he on the right track on all of these issues?

Me Think We Doth Protest Too Much

America was founded on protest - protest against being British subjects. America was founded by Protestants - from George Washington to every president has been Protestant, except for two. The Protestant religion was a protest against the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Today in modern times we have many protests here and abroad; some are relevant and necessary as long as they are peaceful, while some are neither.  

The Iranians are protesting their authoritarian government for not avoiding high unemployment and higher taxes. Their protest appears justified even if it ends up being unsuccessful. 

Many Americans rightfully protested against having their country attack Iraq. While valid, it was unsuccessful and the U.S. entered one of several unnecessary and costly wars. In addition to the U.S. efforts to overthrow Iraq's government at great expense, we encouraged the people of Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia to protest against their government. It worked out pretty well in Tunisia but not very well for the other countries with protests in the Middle East. Libya, Syria, and Yemen have become failed states, breeding grounds for terrorists like those in Al Qaeda and ISIS. In Syria, thousands of protestors demanded that their longtime dictator step down immediately. Much of Syria is now in ruins because thousands of the country's millions protested and got violent and destructive. Libya has also become a country in chaos. In Egypt thousands first protested against their longtime dictator and then protested a year later against their recently elected president who is now spending his time in prison. He was replaced by the former dictator's people and Egypt is back to where is it was before the protests, but tourism is way down. Yemen is now a disaster of lawlessness and violence.

But do we protest too much sometimes or even too often? 

When our 45th president was sworn into office thousands of Americans protested in Washington D.C and at several U.S. cities. They wanted him to end his presidency on the first day. The next day there was the women's march with women representing less than 1% of American women. They were protesting against what they feared would happen - it would become harder to get an abortion. Both protests cost the protestor hundreds or even thousands of dollars for transportation and lodging. 

These two protests against the president had no effect whatsoever. No change occurred.

When whites supremacists paraded in Charlottesville, Virginia. people wanted to protest against the alt right. They were involved in a riot, with members of each side fighting the other. They were protesting against a group of uneducated people who represented less than 1% of U.S. population. I wrote to some friends who proudly protested that it would change everything. Of course, it changed nothing except maybe to move people to further extremes on both sides creating hate groups like Antifa whose members vandalized the U.C. Berkeley campus to keep free speech from occurring because they disagreed with it. This at the home of the free speech movement. Their protests/riots were successful because the administration there was intimidated by both the rioters and the forbidden speakers.

A few years ago we had another kind of protest that lasted four months and destroyed businesses and other private property. The protestors/rioters were protesting the fact that a teen who was 6'5" was killed while trying to kill a police officer. The three month grand jury investigation and that of the U.S. Attorney General ruling that the killing was self defense did not end the protests, Perhaps, they wanted the teen to succeed even though it would mean a life sentence in prison.

A few years ago we had the start of yet another protest movement. A football player, who had been benched for two seasons up until then, decided to kneel at the National Anthem.  Later other players joined him to show solidarity with their fellow athlete. No one noticed but these NFL players, many of whom make more than $1 million a year, were protesting about their condition. Many had been accepted to colleges, to which they would not have been accepted were it not for their athletics and got free tuition, room and board, and reimbursements for transportation costs. They were protesting that fellow blacks were being treated unfairly sometimes by police and more times by their condition. Perhaps they never asked themselves what country treats blacks better? What other country outside Africa ever elected a black president and twice no less? The NFL has more than 900 players getting $1 million or more to play in 14 games a year doing what they most love. They also neglected to admit that while police officers mistakingly kill some blacks, the majority of all homicide victims are black as are their assailants, while representing only 13% of the country's population.

Now we are protesting against powerful men who have ever harassed or assaulted women. Every day we hear about another who has lost his career because of his past misdeeds. In Alabama, a Republican state, the Republican U.S Senate candidate was found to have improperly touched a few teenage girls 40 years ago. That ended his chances at a Senate seat. Most of us agree that abusing women or anyone, for that matter, is wrong. Rape is a terrible crime. Other forms of sexual assault are also reprehensible. No one should feel harassed in the workplace. But it seems as though women are blaming men for innocent remarks like "You look great today" or "Is that a new hairstyle? It looks great." But it extends to unwanted requests for a date or kissing someone who didn't want to be kissed. The N.Y. Times reported that the failed presidential candidate and her supporters paid $700,000 to have women come out and protest the Republican presidential candidate's past harassment in order to secure their candidate's election. It was apparently not secured.

But now I have my own protests. 

I protest against Democrat/liberals and Republican/conservatives. Neither group could come up a viable way to ensure that everyone who wants affordable health coverage can get it. They were also unable to fix the tax code so that is both simple and fair.

I protest against one company, Amazon, taking over business after business on its way to controlling our economy.

I protest against inconsiderate, dishonest, violent and/or vulgar people.

I protest against homelessness - a national disgrace.

I protest against shows that play music during dialogue. It drives me crazy because it makes it more difficult to hear what the characters are saying and is an insult to the writers, the actors and even the directors by acting as though all their efforts fail without background music.

I protest against huge cash settlements or jury awards for the slightest injury or for being injured while violently resisting arrest.

I protest against containers that are difficult to open or reseal.

I protest getting old and watching my body falling painfully apart. I  protest even though there is probably no way to avoid it. 

But I can protest without a crowd of supporters marching for my cause. I don't need vulgar and insulting signs or to destroy public property to wage my protest. I can write a blog, I can write to the responsible legislators or decision makers. I can come up with my own solutions and present them to our representatives. 

In short or not so short, I am protesting protesting and I'm not even Protestant.

Me thinks we doth protest too much.