We're Liberal to a Degree

Bob Dylan wrote "I'm liberal to a degree, I want everyone to be free, but if you think I'd let Barry Goldwater (a conservtive Arizona senator and presidential candidate) move in next door or marry my daughter, you must think that I'm crazy."

How many of our liberal thinkers might say "I'm liberal to a degree, but if you think that we're for illegal immigration, free college, free healthcare, reparations for all Americans with African ancestry, late term abortion even if the  baby is born alive and chain immigration, you must think I'm crazy." 

Liberals used to be for America's underdog. It could be called the Underdog party. The underdogs were the disabled, the poor, the elderly, American Indians, and people of African or Latino heritage. The underdog label has been expanded. We now also represent the LGBTQ members, illegal immigrants, women in their fight for "equality." The underdog class now even includes the 99% of us who are not in the top 1%, making less than $500,000 a year. 

We are and have been against discrimination, want to improve our public schools, get companies to pay at least a living wage which might vary in each state or even cities in our states, an end to wars in the Middle East, and before that, Vietnam, reducing pollution  and ending homelessness, America's greatest disgrace. We accepted the right to have an abortion in the first trimester, the first 13 weeks. We wanted marijuana to be decriminalized and wanted to help the less fortunate here. We wanted affordable health coverage, not ACA. 

Suddenly, some liberals may have become socialists. Top dogs, the successful of white men have become the cause of all our problems. If we could tax them to death, they will be no income disparity.  Every student should get free college tuition regardless of family income. Even though every president from George W. to Clinton and Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress (Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer) stated that we must end illegal immigration even if we need to put up barriers to keep them out, new liberals now call it inhumane. 

The socialist members also wanted free Medicare for all 325 million of us even though it would cost an additional $3.5 trillion a year. Some candidates are saying that we should end private insurance, so if you have great private coverage, you must lose it and pay more taxes in excess of an added 100%. They must know that there is an easy solution from making it voluntary, to letting private insurers reject any applicant for medical reasons. Those denied coverage would able to get the "public option," a federal program with a share of cost depending on income. This was much like candidate Obama wanted, but was denied by Congress under pressure from medical insurers because it seemed that the public option would hurt their business instead of making it more profitable. 

When have members of one party attacked those of the other verbally and physically? When were they kicked out of restaurants and airplanes?  

Some wanted reparations to Americans of distant African heritage to get tax money, regardless of their income or claims their ancestors were slaves that ended more than 150 years ago. They also have suggested reparations for American Indians. This is something we can agree on. Elizabeth Warren would not be eligible, regardless of her high cheekbones.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Please Don't Be Offended

America used to be a melting pot. First generation Americans were Americans and wanted to be. They embraced American values like integrity, self reliance, hard work, law abiding, generosity and kindness. 

When my parents arrived during WWII, they didn't come for welfare payments and other subsidies. The benefits were not even created yet. When they applied for citizenship, they were required to renounce their other country and became Americans, only. It was like having only one spouse at a time. 

The new immigrants learned English and raised their children as Americans. The immigrants did not insist on special accommodations. The Jews did not insist that all food should be kosher. Newly-arrived Catholics did not insist on only having fish served on Friday for everyone. 

The first-generation Americans studied hard in school and if they got into trouble and their parents were called in, the parents blamed the student and not the school.

We had Catholic schools and some Yeshivas for the Jews. If  students chose Catholic school, they understood that it would have Catholic symbols and weren't offended.

We had statues of confederate heroes. We understood what they were fighting for but honored them in their defeat. Athletic teams were free to name their teams to no objections.

Since this was a Christian nation, we celebrated Christmas and Easter. Those of us who were not Christian did not object. We said Merry Christmas and Happy New Year; today 83% of non Christians do too. Now some are calling the song "White Christmas,"which is a Christmas time song with people dreaming of snow for Christmas. It has been labeled racist because snow should come in different colors.

Many government sites presented the Ten Commandments and most of us realized that this was the beginning of moral imperatives.

People were accepted to college based on merit (except for athletes and legacy applicants).

We believed in "e pluribus unum" - out of many, one. We believed that "united we stand divided we fall."

Things have changed.

We divided our population, calling some top dogs and others under dogs. The top dogs are considered the problem. The underdogs were victims of this cruel American capitalism. Over the years our kinds of underdogs which started being the aged, disabled, and poor began to grow. This included nonwhites, women, LGBTQ, and atheists. They are victims and must be defended. This is the essence of liberalism. 

The top dogs were said to be the problem because they were successful. This list of victims grew also from the poor, to the bottom 99%. A socialist candidate said that those of us who were not extremely wealthy, were all underdogs.

Now people here without invitation have become the new underdogs. Can they be blamed for escaping poverty and corruption? No, but why come here? There are probably more than 50 million Latin Americans who would love to be here. The more we help them, the more will come. 

The idea of a melting pot has become a salad bowl. People are encouraged to take pride in their former homeland, the one they escaped from because they couldn't bear living there. 

We have become a nation of tribes, with each demanding accommodations. Our Muslim newcomers want their customs followed. At one school, they asked that no pork product be served. A Catholic university took down all their religious trappings so as not to offend non-Catholics who freely chose the school knowing it was Catholic. A few other Catholic schools did the same. 

Now the issue is the Pledge of Allegiance, which may offend recent arrivals who would not want to recite this pledge to America, the country that took their families in and provided education including free breakfast and lunch and freedom and other benefits.

Before that some protested the 81 year old name of a football team because it might possibly offend the "injured party." A poll was taken and 90% of the affected group said they didn't care.

Monuments to historic leaders of the Confederacy had to be removed because they might offend Americans whose distant ancestors may have been slaves. These leaders represented that abuse. They have/had been up for more than 100 years.

This fear of possibly offending someone in some group has led us to stifle free speech. Comedians no longer go to college campuses because their jokes might offend someone. Some colleges have banned speakers with different ideas from theirs. Those who think differently are quickly labeled. They are racist, homophobic, sexist,  ethnocentric, hateful, xenophobic, misogamist, and/or isolationist, so their comments are to be disregarded. Their speech must be stifled.

We now have new terms like "cultural appropriation" and "micro-aggression." The former is said to occur when one person dresses or wears their hair the way people of another subculture do, even though we all do it from having our hair straightened or putting it  in dread locks, or dying our black hair blond, though some of these are not being complained about. Micro-aggression is said to occur if someone asks another about their heritage, something that happens to many of us and usually is a sign of interest in the person.

Now the latest issue is the "Make America Great Again" hats. This Was Trump's slogan as it was Clinton's and Reagan's. But people wearing those hats are being banished from restaurants and labeled. They are "offensive." 

We have become a country that favors diversity over merit. To some, diversity is everything. What did whites ever do? OK there was Abraham who realized monotheism. There was Moses who gave the world a moral code. There was Jesus who inspired millions. There was Galileo, Einstein, Freud, Columbus, Washington, Lincoln, FDR,  Henry Ford, Edison, Dr. Salk, the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, every president until the 44th, to name a few. They made America the greatest democracy and economy of all time, but aside from all that what good have they done?

Now instead of "e pluribus unum" we have become "e pluribus pluribus." Instead of "united we stand, divided we fall," it has become "divided we stand, united we fall."

And we're falling.

Please don't be offended.

  

In 1982 Tylenol was poisoned in one location, once. But from then on we have changed packaging so the product won't get poisoned. Now many of our products are too difficult to open, even for the rightful owner. Surely, there's a way to make items easier  for the customer while still keeping us safe. Have we overreacted?

In 2001 the shoe Bomber was caught trying to blow the plane up. He failed and will get free room and board in prison. But since then airline security has been more effective. Not only can't you carry a firearm in your overhead storage bin, you can't bring a lighter or certain kinds of liquids. Now everyone goes through a metal detector, followed by requiring that we have to take our shoes off. I was asked to take all my paper money out of my pockets. When they returned my money I acted angry saying that I had thousands of dollars but they were not returned to me. Have $20 dollar bills been used to blow something up?

There have many reports of sexual misconduct. They came after Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were found committing disgraceful sexual behavior. I don't know anyone who approves of rape. These revelations led to the me/too movement encouraging women to go public of their experiences of sexual verbal or physical abuse, especially if the accused is a prominent entertainer or businessman with deep pockets. 

Many of the reported assaults were unbelievably bad. But there were more complaints of verbal abuse. We understand that too. A boss repeatedly asks his employee to go out him knowing she doesn't want to. A boss brags about the size of his private part. But what does this lead to? Did a man touch  a woman's rear while both were drunk? Did he try to kiss a date but she didn't want or like it. Are they to be considered sexual misconduct?

My daughter recently attended a class mandated for all employees. They were told that if a man says a woman looks nice in that outfit, or says he likes her new hairdo it is now considered sexual harassment. Is this behavior verboten?

Now our important issue is racism. What America did to the indigenous people here is unforgivable. Buying African slaves and bringing them here to work hard, with no freedom, heartless. After 1865, while slavery had been abolished Jim Crow discriminated against these freed slaves as well as anyone of African descent. I experienced it in 1964 while traveling through the Southwhere there were water fountains and rest rooms that were only for whites and separately ones only for "colored." I am dark and feared being in trouble for using the facilities reserved for whites but the alernative was using a filthy restroom for blacks. I was there when Lester Maddox refused to serve people of color. He was later elected governor.

Have we become too sensitive about even traces of racism. We are not allowed to use the word beginning with the letter that follows "m." If we find that someone, other than a rep singer or a member of the cited group, has, we ostracise the person, sometimes ruining their career even if it had happened only once decades ago. Their ancestors left Africa 300 years ago. We do it to be nice. Was it? We created affirmative action which included bussing students to locations that were foreign to them.  Colleges and businesses were told to give black applicants preferential treatment when applying to college or for s job. Affirmative action was ruled unconstitutional. They were then saying they are giving preferential treatment because of their diversity which lately has a sine qua non for a great workforce and college atmosphere. One wonders how they survived without diversity. Today, diversity trumps excellence and past merit. 

We now have an estimated  11+ million illegal immigrants living here. Recently a caravan of thousands tried to storm the wall. Failing to do so, they must remain in camps in Mexico. The Mexicans are revolting against those who want to get into America illegally. They are against illegal immigration. Now they know how we feel. 

The President wants to build a wall along the border in California, Arizona and New Mexico. The liberals are protesting. Does that mean that they want an open border? If the word gets out, we'll have tens of millions of people to make room for and provide them with all their needs - housing, food subsidies. healthcare coverage, free education, et al.  To be against mass migration from Latin America is said to be a racist and xenophobic. It's not their fault for sneaking in. Are we under-reacting about it it?

After the death of a famous singer, whose medical data was shared by several of the hospital staff, we overreacted. We were now so overacting that it is hard for person to get his own test results while in in the hospital. The hospital administrator was contacted to explain this absurd policy. She explained that if I got the results, I might drop some on the floor of my room and someone could  come in and steal them and use them for some dastardly deed. I told the administrator that if she ever changes careers, she should be a defense attorney.I was told to fill out a form authorizing them to give me permission to give my data to me. Then I was told that I couldn't get the results until I left the hospital.

There has been cases of hacked computers. We don't want to be hacked. Now it seems that whenever we call a business we must provide our logon,  password and secret code, or we can't get helped. I called a healthcare billing agency about yet another error in their billing to me. I said that I wanted the manager call me. She did. We were talking about the billing problems and then she wanted me to prove who I was and  asked for me to verify myself with birthdate, address etc. I asked her why she was doing that then. I asked her do many people call to challenge someone else's charges?

I called my credit union to request a free planner, which I never got last year. The woman knew me and knew that the only reason for the call was the planner. I was asked to give her my account number and to remember how much was my latest transfer. I asked her do many people call for someone else and request a planner for the actual customer? Are we going too far?

It seems with all these issues the problem is not only reacting but also the lack of judgement They can't realize how ridiculous it is.

Misleading Studies

 Many studies by well-educated people seem to get the results they  want. Here are: some examples:

We always heard the experts use the term again and again "income inequality." What is the goal? Is it income equality? That didn't work in Russia nor the countries under Russia's rule.'' The more appropriate  term should be the "income gap."

But the income gap is very overstated. The study measures the income before taxes. It should be measuring the after tax income including bonuses for the well-to -do. The researchers also used the low income people without including the government subsidies which are valued at $30,000 for a family of four. It is $50,000 in Hawaii. The uncounted subsidies in food stamps, Medicaid, breakfast and lunch meals at their children's public schools, the earned income credit, housing subsidies, refundable $2,000 credits per child, and so on. This means that 3% are actually below the poverty level, not 12.5%. But for anyone to be living in the bottom 20% is still unacceptable. The rich are too rich and the poor are too poor.

In healthcare we are compared to the other developed nations. The analysis failed to recognize some causes for this. America has a problem with violence and massive substance abuse. So if a person is rushed to the hospital while dying, this counts as a lost patient. Our people are more obese which causes organic problems like heart disease, kidney failure, and diabetes. This adds to our medical costs but are not found in most first world countries. We are more heterogeneous, with some not seeing a doctor until it's too  late. So our costs have to be much higher. We also do highly expensive operations to save even a fetuse's life while in utero. We count our birth rates counting those who are born dead. Then other countries count only children's death when they are at least one year old.

The U.S. also does needed surgeries very quickly in a few days or weeks. To get a hip replacement might take a week or so. In many of these countries, especially single payer systems, that operation would start in as much as a year. The U.S is still number one in all the serious conditions like heart failure, cancer treatment, brain surgery to name a few. So these studies are comparing apples to oranges. It can only be because the study was biased. 

Then there are the claims that America's public schools are nowhere near that of other first world. Again it is apples and oranges. These other countries are homogeneous, share the same language, values and practices. We have a very heterogeneous country. A share of our public school students can't speak English. Others are from their cultures or a family that put less emphasis on education.  This is not say the public schools are perfect and don't need improvement. I beg to differ. I think that even their curricula are in need of change by teaching students to think as well as memorize as it is now.

The conclusion - don't believe something because you heard it from  experts. We have to begin to think for ourselves.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

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.