“Can’t We All JUST Get Along?”

“Can’t We All JUST Get Along?”

Famous words from the past that still deserves an answer that we won’t accept.

“The lie behind the buzzword of diversity could not be made more clear,” Thiel said Monday.
“If you don’t conform (to their ideology), then you don’t count as diverse, no matter what your personal background.”

So are we talking about RELIGION, RACIAL ETHNICITY, HERITAGE or WHAT?

Immigration reform is more than just installing a "religious test" for immigration, like banning Muslims. It's about looking for extremists regardless of religion.

It's not about keeping individuals from certain countries or religions out, but about looking at why they come here and what they do here.

It's about putting those who want to legally immigrate and go through the proper steps in front of those that don’t. Those that do go through the proper procedures, should be given preference to be allowed to live here and accept the more vigorous scrutiny of their circumstances. It's about if they should be allowed to live here. If they want to live here, they should want to belong here. They should want to assimilate into the society of law-abiding citizens that live here. They should want to accept our culture, even if it interferes with theirs. They should be allowed to bring in those parts of their culture that don't interfere with ours. They should want to speak our language and help us to understand theirs.

Not everyone who is here illegally is a bad person who has a violent or criminal behavior; many are hardworking individuals with a moral upbringing. They aren't all into theft, drugs, and violence, but the good ones should not be given preference over those who legally go through the proper procedures, and those who are born here should only be given citizenship if one of the parents is already a citizen.

It appears that the many religions have the same view of God, but differ in interpretations of the words of God. It's interesting that the words and ideals attributed to God are essentially the same, before religious inflection is applied to them.

I think I heard that God will accept anyone in heaven if they repent, but I could be wrong about that, it may depend on which religious leader I ask.

What's most interesting is that if you convert from one religion to another, it doesn't make a difference which one, you most likely aren't going to Heaven, but it might keep you out of Hell and at least with one religion it may keep you from being killed.

Are we teaching our children to respect authority or reject authority? Is that a biblical teaching regardless of which religious tome you read?

It’s ok to question authority, but if your only action when confronted with those in authority is to provoke a reaction to a perception, either real or imagined, by causing a violent act in defiance of authority, then who was your teacher and what were they teaching?

We can’t all get along together if we don’t try to get along together and not act like a thug or criminal and disrespect any act of authority.

If you want to be treated like a law-abiding person you have to act like a law-abiding person and let those who are videotaping the action help to prove the action was right or wrong.

In God We Trust; religion or amoral activism, not so much.

DON'T BE BLUE

Top 25 Radio Hosts

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican. Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist. Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Here's the kicker. Liberal radio stations don't want to be called "Liberal", they call themselves "Progressive"?

NewsMax Top 25 Radio Hosts and I've listened to most of these at sometime and I doubt I've listened to more than 15 minutes of any one of these, they usually get to ranting about something after 10 minutes.

1. Rush Limbaugh is more than America’s most widely listened-to talk-radio host (“the most listened-to radio host on the planet,” he likes to say).
Take almost anything he says with a shot of JD, about 15% of anything he says is worth listening to and if he gets on a rant, which will usually happen about 2 minutes into a topic, change the station.

2. Bill O’Reilly has established himself as one of the nation’s top media personalities. Every week he finds occasions to agree with something a prominent Democratic politician has said, although O’Reilly has also remarked that “the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left.”
By that standard he will say something "Nice" about something from a Democrat about one in 5 times, again about 20%, but for the most part I consider about 40% of anything he says as worth listening to, until the ego trip.

3. Don Imus is the most curmudgeonly of America’s major talk hosts. Although "slightly" liberal, Imus’s sharp tongue slashes Republican and Democratic politicians alike.
He likes to rant a lot, which means I will change the station after about 5 minutes. Maybe 10% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

4. Michael Savage is individualistic, iconoclastic, and eclectic; a passionate populist who sometimes sounds like a shock jock.
He yells a lot and may even start off in a rant about something which I don't care about! I usually can't listen to him for more than 5 minutes. Again about 10% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

5. Sean Hannity is a talk host with a pugilistic demeanor who polarizes issues into contests between good guys in white hats and bad guys in black.
I can usually listen to him longer than others, I may have listened to him for more than 15 minutes at any one time, but not often. About 30% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

6. Laura Ingraham, whose insider knowledge of government, droll humor, and feisty, fervent conservatism keeps her at the top of Conservative Talk Radio.
I can listen to her for about 15 minutes, or until she goes on a rant about her views on abortion. I can sometimes stand her for more than 15 minutes, but only about 20% of anything she talks about is worth listening to.

7. Glenn Beck’s relentless good humor can make important topics seem less urgent.
He can get into a "holier than thou" attitude, then it's change the station. I even have one of his books, about a Christmas Sweater. Again, usually 15 minutes is about all I can take, but about 25% of anything he talks about is worth listening to for me, until the God rant starts - and sometimes he starts with it.

8. Dr. Laura Schlesinger is seen as a cultural and political talk host because she — sin of sins — judgmentally asserts that some politically correct behaviors are wrong.
I think I've listened to her for more than 20 minutes and think about 30% of her topics are worth listening to.

9. Neal Boortz, “the talk master,” is America’s most popular Libertarian talk-show host.
I can take maybe about 2 minutes and less than 10% of what he talks about is worth listening to.

10. Al Franken, the brightest star of Air America Radio, is the left’s latest attempt to create its own Limbaugh.
They admit it's a Leftist radio station and host, not just liberal, which means right away it's over the top and extremely bent. Let's see, Minnesota had Jesse Ventura (R) as a governor and decided to tip the scales back to center with Al Franken (D) as a Representative in Congress. They overtipped. As soon as I hear his voice, I know about 2% of his topics would be worth listening to, for maybe 30 seconds.

11. Mike Gallagher a talk host in the Hannity style who sees right vs. left as right vs. wrong,
and as far as extreme views go, he's half right. I can actually stand him for about 20 minutes and think about 30% of his topics are worth listening to.

12. Erich “Mancow” Muller is known for his wild behavior. His show features a large cast of characters, adolescent pranks.
Not a serious show, so unless you really want to screw up your head, don't bother unless you're an airhead.

13. Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed “king of all media,” is a talk-radio superstar whose audience once rivaled Limbaugh’s.
A real shock jock with nothing worth listening to, again don't bother unless you're an airhead. 
OK, here's the deal, when is the last time you actually ate at a restaurant with a "B" rating? And Howard is a "C", at best.

14. Bill Bennett’s radio show, Morning in America, was launched in April 2004. On the air he often exhibits the patience and certitude of a priest.
5 minutes, tops, then that's it and about 10% worth listening to, if you can get past 5 minutes.

15. Opie & Anthony epitomize radio’s new “cringe” shock jocks.
Airheads only, couldn't get past 30 seconds.

16. Ed Schultz a converted “moderate” Republican is now a “progressive liberal.” Schultz describes himself as a “gun-totin’, red meat-eatin’ lefty” out to slay the “right-wing radio dragon.”
So, by his own definition, about 5% of his topics are worth listening to, for maybe 2 minutes, before he goes on a rant.

17. Michael Medved the self-described “cultural crusader on politics and culture” has always enjoyed debating politics.
Good for maybe 20 to 25 minutes max, about 25% of his topics are worth listening to.

18. Randi Rhodes is the main “hit man” at Air America Radio, the liberal network. She has been described as, “a chain-smoking bottle blonde. The Miami Herald says she's mostly, rude, crude, loud, brazen, gleefully scatological.”
Less credible than Al Franken or Keith Olbermann. 30 seconds max and nothing worth listening to.

19. Jim Bohannon describes himself as “a militant moderate”, soft-edged liberal.
Apparently he's retiring anyway.

20. G. Gordon Liddy has brought unique insights about government and the world, and convicted in the Watergate scandal.
I can actually listen to him and Oliver North for longer than most pundits.

21. Diane Rehm is one of the more moderate voices empowered by taxpayer-supported NPR.
But then again, NPR is 100% liberal, if not tipping too far to the left, so I don't listen to them.

22. Larry Elder is America’s pre-eminent libertarian-conservative African-American radio talk show host. He coined the term “Victicrat” to describe those who seek political power by claiming to represent victims of racism or poverty.
I can listen to him for 20 minutes or more and about 45% of his topics are worth listening to.

23. Michael Reagan’s radio show is a forum where Republican voices and conservative values come together.
The son of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, he has a large legacy to live up to. He's also good for about 20 minutes.

24. Tammy Bruce is living with one foot at each end of the political spectrum, she has both conservative and liberal critics. She describes herself as “a pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, openly gay, voted-for-President-Reagan progressive feminist Democrat”.
If she can stay on topic for 5 minutes, without the ego trip, I can listen to about 15% of her topics.

25. Tom Leykis, the poor man’s Howard Stern, used to focus on politics and boasted that his was the only radio show “not hosted by a right-wing wacko or a convicted felon".
Any reference to Howard would make me change the station, but I can actually take him for about 15 minutes on about 20% of his topics.

It's all about the business.

"Some of the progressive or liberal shows had just been sold to Al Jazeera. it's clear that the progressive community and its political leaders have simply not supported the format in the same way that the (conservative format) has. As someone who took substantial personal risk in syndication and station ownership, I can tell you that progressive talk has not panned out as a viable business. Air America's parade of management blunders produced the downward spiral that brought us to this tipping point for progressive talk radio, and most station owners, rightly or wrongly, see that failure as an indication that audiences won't support liberal talk radio."

 Peter B Collins, Truthout

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14355-an-insiders-view-of-the-progressive-talk-radio-devolution

DON'T BE BLUE

The 50 most popular liberal websites

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican.
Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist.
Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Their list, not mine:
Newspapers are off the list for two reasons. Number one, people reading newspapers for reasons other than political content; Number two, since most newspapers lean to the left, they would have dominated the list.
These websites were ranked using Alexa Web Analytics.

 All 50 websites are listed with their Alexa rank following their link. So for example, a “1” would mean the page was the most popular website on the net. A “100,000” would mean the 100,000th most popular page on the net. With that being said, let’s go ahead and take a look at the rankings.
The number beside of each website represents its overall rank on the Internet.

1)  CNN: 52
2)  The Huffington Post: 393
3)  Time: 553
4)  NPR: 1,524
5)  Slate: 1,569
6)  Newsweek: 1,690
7)   U.S. News & World Report: 2,408
8)  Politico: 2,470
9)  Salon: 2,455
12) The Atlantic: 8,538
13) The Village Voice: 8,922
16) New Yorker: 12,429
17) The Daily Beast: 12,512
23) MoveOn: 21,786
24) Mother Jones: 22,277
25) Amnesty International: 23,807
27) The Nation: 24,552
28) Antiwar: 24,799
32) Planned Parenthood: 28,207
33) Information Clearing House: 28,605
37) Political Wire: 34,698
39) ACLU: 37,195
40) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: 37,494
41) Media Matters: 37,650
44) Drudge Retort: 41,472
45) The American Prospect: 42,082
46) Harper’s Magazine: 42,659
47) Firedoglake: 42,836
48) TruthDig: 44,389
49) Wonkette: 45,704
50) AmericaBlog: 45,195

Honorable Mentions

51) FiveThirtyEight: 46,521
52) The Washington Monthly: 48,238
53) Michael Moore 48,918
55) Air America: 54,928
58) Center for American Progress: 58,713
59) The Brookings Institute: 61,302
60) Zmag: 65,741
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/#ixzz43mb7ZOOy

DON'T BE BLUE

The 100 Most Popular Conservative Websites Of 2015

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican.

Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist.

Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Their list, not mine:
Newspapers are off the list for two reasons. Number one, people reading newspapers for reasons other than political content; Number two, since most newspapers lean to the left, they would have dominated the list.

These websites were ranked using Alexa Web Analytics.

The number beside of each website represents its overall rank on the Internet.




1) Fox News: 212
2) Wall Street Journal: 294
3) Independent Journal Review 341
4) The Drudge Report: 635
5) Western Journalism: 819
6) New York Post: 870
7) The Blaze: 1045
8) Breitbart: 1,533
9) WorldNetDaily: 2,500
10) Conservative Tribune: 2,555
11) Newsmax: 2,622
12) Young Conservatives: 2972
13) Infowars: 3,133
14) Top Right News: 3,203
15) The Washington Times: 3,241
16) The Daily Caller: 3,328
17) National Review: 4,379
18) Rare: 5,159
19) Real Clear Politics: 5,617
20) PJ Media/Instapundit: 5,799
21) TownHall: 6,643
22) Investor’s Business Daily: 6,930
23) Hot Air: 7,136
24) The Washington Examiner: 7,372
25) Reason: 7,882
26) The Washington Free Beacon: 8,176
27) Qpolitical: 8,564
28) Twitchy: 8,783
29) The Weekly Standard: 9,124
30) Cybercast News Service: 9,154
31) Free Republic: 10,125
32) Right Wing News: 10,545
33) Chicks On The Right: 11,575
34) Newsbusters: 12,674
35) Mad World News: 13,110
36) The American Thinker: 13,279
37) The Gateway Pundit: 14,301
38) The Tea Party News Network: 14,928
39) Glenn Beck: 15,422
40) Freedom Outpost: 15,869
41) The Heritage Foundation: 15,991
42) Lifesitenews: 16,045
43) Buzzpo: 17,949
44) The Federalist: 17,512
45) The Federalist Papers: 17,759
46) Shoebat: 17,976
47) Power Line: 18,615
48) The Rush Limbaugh Show: 19,421
49) Lew Rockwell: 20,179
50) Watts Up With That? 21,357
51) Bizpac Review: 21,506
52) Redstate: 22,625
53) Life News: 22,747
54) Clash Daily: 23,254
55) Truth Revolt: 23,564
56) Lucianne: 23,856
57) Ace of Spades HQ/My Pet Jawa/Rhymes With Right: 24,253
58) Viral Buzz: 24,918
59) The Right Scoop: 27,873
60) Pamela Geller: 28,467
61) Front Page Magazine: 30,367
62) Universal Free Press: 31,314
63) Tell Me Now: 31,221
64) Weasel Zippers: 32,545
65) Louder With Crowder: 30,631
66) Jihad Watch: 33,200
67) Mr. Conservative 33,894
68) American Conservative: 33,952
69) RedFlagNews: 35,048
70) The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 35,700
71) Freedom Outpost: 36,794
72) The Cato Journal: 37,900
73) Taki’s Magazine: 40,558
74) Joe For America: 44,530
75) Legal Insurrection: 45,079
76) Steyn Online: 46,174
77) The American Spectator: 49,116
78) American Enterprise Institute: 49,548
79) Personal Liberty Digest: 49,747
80) Allen West: 49,872
81) Commentary: 49,515
82) Bad Blue: 49,522
83) Three Percenter Nation: 50,012
84) The New American: 54,502
85) Judicial Watch: 59,172
86) Washington Weekly News: 62,691
87) Althouse: 66,030
88) Daily Paul: 66,851
89) Bill O’Reilly: 67,480
90) GOP.com: 67,749
91) Canada Free Press: 68,023
92) Human Events Online: 68,967
93) Jewish World Review: 76,215
94) GOPUSA: 71,293
95) Ricochet: 71,358
96) Day by Day: 73,755
97) Numbers USA: 76,280
98) Vox Day: 76,816
99) X Tribune: 76,417
100) City Journal: 84,176
http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-100-most-popular-conservative-websites-of-2015/#ixzz43md12DPH

DON'T BE BLUE

Left, Right, Left (politics)

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order. The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a called a moderate.

In the dictionary the word "liberal" is defined as "open minded, not adhering to established doctrine or orthodoxy, while "conservative" means "one who conforms to traditional positions or views".

This would make anyone, whether a Democrat or a Republican, who voted the straight party ticket, a conservative, someone conforming to established doctrine. 

The only people who can, legitimately, be called "liberals" would be the independents and swing voters, since they are the only ones making open minded individual choices.

This is not about who's better, Democrats, which are often mislabeled as LEFT or Republicans, which are often mislabeled as RIGHT, or to suggest that anyone is wrong to vote their beliefs, which, as an American, I'd hope you'd do just that. 

My question is about the choice of terms.
The extremes in both parties are most likely to label the other party as either Left or Right, while they,  really think of themselves as Liberal or Conservative.

Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left has been labeled as anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.

Researchers have also said that the Right has been labelled as fascists, racists, Nazis, capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.

Interestingly, both categories have contradictions, in my mind, for the same terms.
Both parties have demonstrated that they are NOT open minded as a party, while any person of either party would certainly say that "they" ARE open minded and anyone of the other party is not.

I've seen more racist attitudes and demonstrations started by so called Anti-racists as categorized by the term Left. I've also seen more so called Anti-racists throwing the race card, with the express intent to initiate a confrontation that will lead to open violence.

Keep in mind that the first person or group to throw the race card, is the real racist.

I think no party designation, either Democrat or Republican, is really defined, by either party, as being racist. It is an individual ideology. Most people have forgotten that the Democratic party was originally founded on racism and the Republican party was against it, resulting in the Civil War,

It is also very interesting that while the, admittedly Democrat leaning activist group, "Black Lives Matter", so called Anti-racist activists, openly demonstrates against a black person being killed by a white police officer, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime, BUT there is no outcry by them when a black police officer kills or even shoots another black person, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime.

There has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer shoots or kills a person who is white, hispanic, asian or any other race, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime. Clearly ALL lives do not matter.

And there has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer is killed by another black person committing a crime.

Point of View  Wikipedia Yahoo 

And don't get me started on using insanity as a defense for a not guilty plea.


DON'T BE BLUE

Civility has been lost, in Politics and Sports

Former Yankees star reliever and current spring training instructor Goose Gossage has shaken Western democracy by denouncing players — home-run bat-flippers, pitching-mound chest-pounders, and the like. 

So the Yankees brought Gossage in for a chat?

Gossage, as per my understanding, said, “Let’s keep some sport in our sport. Bad losers can reasonably be explained and indulged. Bad winners? No way.”

Among the most commonly asked questions by fans who were raised to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad and winning baseball from everything less, has become, “How do managers allow that stuff?”

Baseball players are not the only fools who parade their incivility in this unsportsmanlike manner. Football players ,both American and European, but mostly American Football players, are the most egregious. Basketball is not quite as bad as Baseball or Football, but there is lots of disrespect shown between players in most team sports. Hockey may be the worst in teaching unsportsmanlike behavior to our children, as far as encouraging unsportsmanlike conduct on the ice by allowing fights between players, but Football and Baseball and Basketball are more watched by our impressionable youth.
It appears that most team sports are a parade of fools. 
http://nypost.com/2016/03/14/goose-gossage-absolutely-right-to-call-out-mlb-showboaters/

Civility has been lost, in Politics and Sports.
And it all starts with how they are brought up.
Being respectful and civil in your social interactions and accomplishments was encouraged as a young participant in school as well as play. It's not being taught by parents or teachers anymore. Generation X and Millennial children are seriously lacking in Civility.

The disruptive conduct of protesters at presidential candidate Donald Trump’s rallies is the latest evidence that protesting in a civil manner is not the hallmark of the current electoral campaign. The protesters were bent on causing as much disruption as possible, mostly physical. In Ohio a protester was apprehended when he approached Trump on stage, perhaps intent on inflicting physical harm to the candidate. 

This protester was an anarchist with blogs and Facebook pages showing his hate for America in his words and actions by stomping on the American Flag. It was later learned that his mother is an extreme left wing protester advocating socialism, his father is a preacher.

Other candidates have faced less physical confrontation, but their opponents’ vocal catcalls have disrupted their efforts to speak to their supporters. “Black Lives Matter” advocates have been particularly disruptive, most notably at a Bernie Sanders event. 

It's interesting that the Democratic supporters that demonstrate at Republican events have the most violent outcomes, while the Republican supporters at the Democratic events have not shown any violence. 

If protesters want to attend the rallies of candidates they don’t like, they can do so in a peaceful, non-disruptive manner while still making their point. Years ago a group of protesters quietly took seats in the front row at a speech by someone they opposed, holding opposition signs clearly visible to the speaker and television news cameras. There was no disruption, but the speaker was aware of their protest throughout his presentation.

Why can’t the citizens of a nation whose First Amendment is a protection of free speech honor the right of their opponents to practice that right without harassment? 

It appears to me that the Left wing can't get their voice heard without resorting to violence, even when they demonstrate against other Democrats, at Democratic events.

George Washington Carver ~ "How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in your life you will have been all of these."

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING VS TRUTH IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

It's that time again. Political campaing season is coming, now that the polls are history and the voting is starting.

Businesses have to abide to Truth in Advertising, why don't politicians?

Are they held to a lower standard?

We should have all of the politicians wear a collar that would shock them when they lie to the public.

They should also be held accountable for advertising that is used to sway public opinion on their behalf.

Where have all the honest politicians gone, well they've been dead for a long time.


Here are some of the voices of the past about Politics.

“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”
― Malcolm X, By Any Means Necessary

“In politics as in philosophy, my tenets are few and simple. The leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves and to exact it from others, meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant, and happy.”
― George Washington

“The Seven Social Sins are:
1. Wealth without work.
2. Pleasure without conscience.
3. Knowledge without character.
4. Commerce without morality.
5. Science without humanity.
6. Worship without sacrifice.
7. Politics without principle."
From a sermon given by Frederick Lewis Donaldson in Westminster Abbey, London, on March 20, 1925.

“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain

About political correctness
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
― Napoléon Bonaparte

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
― John F. Kennedy

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
― Edward R. Murrow

“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.”
― Frank Herbert

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston S. Churchill

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.”
― Henry Kissinger

“In this country we have no place for hyphenated Americans.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“Leadership is being the first to put others second. Wait, that’s not right. That’s politics."
"I trust politicians to do what’s right. For themselves.
”
― Jarod Kintz

“The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli

“The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.”
― Will Rogers

DON'T BE BLUE

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy has been going around for quite a while. It represents an idea that creates much opposition from the extreme ends of the spectrum. On one side you have the people who want to place limitations on recent events affecting society, or even past events. On the other you have people who do not want any limitations on those aspects of society affected by the events. Both can be right or wrong, depending on which side you are standing.

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy goes something like this.
Someone says that you can have a whole bag of M&Ms, not a small bag, but the big party bag with 1000 M&Ms in it, but warns you that 1% of them are poisoned. Do you want to still have the free bag of M&Ms? (the actual scenario used 10%, but I feel that's much too high)

The analogy usually refers to something that is certainly meant to stir the emotions when it is referring to a minority of ideologies, like race, religion, ethnicity or any other defining notion.

There's the side believes that treating them all as suspect is validated by not wanting to eat an M&M from a bag were some of them are poisonous. The other side believes it can be used to prop up any kind of harmful stereotype about groups, such as genders, ethnicities, religious and political communities without having to engage the objections to unfair generalizations.

So we should just do away with all of the laws we've made in the past because they are unfair to people who want to commit a crime against innocent people.

The bottom line is this.
We have laws for a reason and the underlying reason is that a minutely small number of a given population has performed an unjust act on the rest of the population with something harmful, like death, in the beginning. It escalated to other less offensive acts that may not have killed anyone, but hurt the physically or financially. If we knew who they were, we wouldn't need the law, but they are hidden among us and acting like us and society is forced be reactive instead of proactive.

Now we are back to the Poisonous M&M Analogy. What if half of the poisonous ones were green, but only about 40% of them. Now you could throw out all of the green ones, but still have .5% poisonous, that’s about 4 out of say 800.

Here's the part they didn't tell you. If you do eat one of the poisonous ones, everyone standing next to you would also die and everyone within 10 feet of you would end up in the hospital, kind of like a virus. Now you have the bag of M&Ms, what do you do with them?

Of course all of the Skittles are free to eat, but what about the green ones?

DON'T BE BLUE

Have we learned nothing about the damned Human Race?

excerpts from a Mark Twain essay - 1905

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning.
In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scottish Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping.

Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh–not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.


Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.
He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet’s time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France for a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary’s day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light.................. he is at it today, in Crete, occasioned by the battles between Christians and Muslims.

He will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.


Who is the Higher Life Form?
The difference between an man and an animal is that the man is cruel and the animal isn’t; and that the man wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the animal doesn’t. This seemed to suggest that the animal was not descended from the man. It also seemed to suggest that the man was descended from the animal and had lost a great deal in the translation.
There is this difference between man and the higher animals: he is avaricious and miserly, they are not.
Among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals.


Roosters keep harems, but it is by consent of their concubines; therefore no harm is done. Men keep harems, but it is by brute force, privileged by atrocious laws which the other sex were allowed no hand in making. In this matter man occupies a far lower place than the rooster.


Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity–these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed.  Man is the only animal that blushes.

Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals.
The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses, except to obtain food. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. Animals are territorial and will gather in mass to expell an intruder, but the animals will abandon the task once the intruder has left. Man will continue beyound his territory to hunt them down for no good reason.


Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country–takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him.
Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another, for wages, service, nobility or ancestry.


Man is the only animal with the "Moral Sense". The ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it. And man will try to explain it away as an animal instinct or an insaine act like an animal who doesn't know right from wrong.


So....It obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.


The Damned Human Race – Mark Twain Essay, published in 1905
http://www.zengardner.com/the-damned-human-race-mark-twain-essay/
DON'T BE BLUE

to the United States Congress

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil ------- is for good men to do nothing."

- Edmund Burke, among others.

Hypocrisy of hip-hop

The Hypocrisy of hip-hop & rap "music".

Artists and producers of Hip-Hop and Rap "Music" claim the lyrics are only a statement of our current life and times. A picture of the environment of life in our modern culture. And I suppose that makes it right?


I could probably accept Hip-Hop and Rap, if it wasn't for it's roots.


The roots and lyrics were and even today are MISOGYNISTIC, homophobic, hateful, racist, vulgar, anti-authoritarian and an all-around bad influence on anyone's children. The list of grievances against hip hop is a long one, and are all present in the lyrical content of Hip-Hop and Rap "Music", and nowhere to be found in the lyrics of the Disney classic "The Song of the South", which was a statement of our life and times in the 40s and 50s.



Politicians, journalists, and critics refuse to condemn the content of Hip-Hop and Rap, yet will shout to the walls and condemn the content of "The Song of the South", even today.
Contrary to popular belief, the "The Song of the South" story takes place after the Civil War and after slavery, it was not during or even about slavery.

"The Song of the South", has a happy feeling and atmosphere, while there is no happiness in any part of most rap and hip-hop music in it's foundation, not then and hardly now.

I can understand the rationale of the critics of "The Song of the South", but those same critics encourage their children to listen to bad rap and Hip-hop, give them awards in televised events and bestow them with "Best of" honors. Which is a sad commentary on the state of the music industry to bestow accolades on something that is at best a sad story of disrespect for everyone and everything and not even good rhyming.

Don't buy the lyrical abusers' CDs, don't buy their gear, don't go to their concerts, don't watch their videos, don't memorize the lyrics to their songs, and don't dance to their tunes.
Wrong is wrong, no matter what color you are.

Check out:

Hip Hop Hypocrisy: When Lies Sound Like the Truth

Alfred 'Coach' Powell (Author), Donna Williams (Editor)

http://www.acoachpowell.com/

http://hiphophypocrisy.blogspot.com/

Also: Who's Afraid of the Song of the South? And Other Forbidden Disney Stories by Jim Korkis.

The genre may have changed, slightly, but the legacy lives on. It's a sad commentary on the music industry when a Grammy Winner, several times in his career, is looked down on when the fans, fellow artists and producers of Hip Hop & Rap music complain that his music is not "black" enough. Just ask Will Smith about it.

 DON'T BE BLUE 

The Mathematics of Religion: One God, but whose?

Updated 3/31/2017

The Mathematics of Religion

.....between religion and arithmetic, other things are not equal. You use arithmetic, but you are religious. Arithmetic of course enters into your nature, so far as that nature involves a multiplicity of things. But it is there as a necessary condition, and not as a transforming agency. 

No one is invariably "justified" by his faith in the multiplication table. But in some sense or other, justification is the basis of all religion. Your character is developed according to your faith. This is the primary religious truth from which no one can escape. Religion is force of belief cleansing the inward parts. For this reason the primary religious virtue is sincerity, a penetrating sincerity.

In the long run your character and your conduct of life depend upon your intimate convictions. Life is an internal fact for its own sake, before it is an external fact relating itself to others.

Religion is the art and the theory of the internal life and strife of man, so far as it depends on the man himself and on what is permanent in the nature of things. But all collective emotions leave untouched the awful ultimate fact, which is the human being, consciously alone with itself, for its own sake.

Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness. It runs through three stages, if it evolves to its final satisfaction. It is the transition from God the void to God the enemy, and from God the enemy to God the companion. Thus religion is solitariness; and if you are never solitary, you are never religious. Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, houses of worship, rituals, religious tomes, and codes of religious behavior, are the trappings of religion, in its passing forms.

Accordingly, what should emerge from religion is individual worth of character. But worth is positive or negative, good or bad. Religion is by no means necessarily good. It may be very evil. The fact of evil, interwoven with the texture of the world, shows that in the nature of things there remains effectiveness for degradation. In some the religious experience the God with whom you have made terms, may be the God of destruction, the God who leaves in his wake the loss of the greater reality. 

For those that say, "God is everywhere, all around us." Your God, nor mine, may not be everywhere.
He was not in that café in Kabul that was just blown up by a terrorist, at least not my God!
He was not in that store or building that was terrorized by some crazed person with a gun that shot those innocent people, at least not my God.


Do you believe in GOD!
A question that frequently emerges from people who are deeply religious, but unfortunately what they are really referring to is..............Do you believe in THEIR God?
Believing in God is, in the long run, not as important as living your life as if you believed in God and even more importantly extolling the attributes of a good, kind, and just God.


When asked that question I usually would reply, which God is that? Is your God a tolerant God? Does your God say that only those who follow your religion, will be welcome into Heaven, and there are many religions? Will your God accept everyone who lives their life not only in acceptance of other's beliefs but also condemning people who practice evil in the name of God?


If you believe in God, then you must believe in Satan, the God of evil. Where God is the semblance of creating order out of chaos, Satan is the opposite, striving to create chaos out of order. Those who practice harm to innocent people, in the name of God, are worshiping Satan.


All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers. Any terrorist who wages war for their god has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate.


Pity the Atheist, which they vehemently deny is also their religion, Atheism, but it speaks to the act of being tolerant of others beliefs, which Atheists are not. They say they only believe in science. They are so arrogant that they say they would not believe in God if he came down and stood before them. Otherwise you're just an agnostic, in wolf's clothing.


Atheists have no history of being or doing good or living your life as a person who rejects evil for the sake of being a good, kind, and just person. They force their beliefs upon others, just as all religions do, but demand you denounce what goodness any religion preaches. If they were tolerant of others, they would not be so demanding and they would be encouraging goodness over evil.




In considering religion, we should not be obsessed by the idea of its necessary goodness. This is a dangerous delusion. The point to notice is its transcendent importance; and the fact of this importance is abundantly made evident by the appeal to history. All religions have defectors that still claim allegiance to their religion, be they Christian or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Mormon or whatever. The deeper they go into harming not only those outside their religion, in the name of God, but even those believers in the same religion, the closer they come to actually worshiping Satan. Satan worshipers revel in dominating the many by the few.




So ask yourself again, WHO IS MY GOD!

You are the sum total of all you have experienced, learned, thought, felt, believed and acted upon. 
What you are -- is inside of you, influenced by external forces, both good and bad. 
You are -- what you believe, based on who taught you and how you interpreted their ideology. 

My God lives and can only live, inside of me, guiding me.

Excerpts from:

Religion in the Making by Alfred North Whitehead (1926)

http://alfrednorthwhitehead.wwwhubs.com/ritm1.htm

Suggested reading:

The Psychological Origin and the Nature of Religion by James H. Leuba

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39511/39511.txt

 DON'T BE BLUE 

Has HE seen the Elephant?

Michael Moore calls our soldiers cowards!

"Has Michael Moore seen the Elephant", or anyone else who wants to criticize our soldiers?

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_062304,00.html

One phrase familiar in enlisted men's writings is, "I've seen the elephant," or, "I'm off to see the elephant." Used to describe the experiences of war and soldiering, the term has many possible origins. Old soldiers in the Civil War coined a phrase for green troops who survived their first taste of battle: "He has seen the elephant."

This Army lieutenant sums up the combat experience better than many a grizzled veteran:

"Well, I'm here in Iraq, and I've seen it, and done it. I've seen everything you've ever seen in a war movie. I've seen cowardice; I've seen heroism; I've seen fear; and I've seen relief. I've seen blood and brains all over the back of a vehicle, and I've seen men bleed to death surrounded by their comrades. I've seen people throw up when it's all over, and I've seen the same shell-shocked look in 35-year-old experienced sergeants as in 19-year-old privates.

"I've seen that, sadly, that men who try to kill other men aren't monsters, and most of them aren't even brave - they aren't defiant to the last - they're ordinary people. Men are men, and that's it. I've prayed for a man to make a move toward the wire, so I could flip my weapon off safe and put two rounds in his chest - if I could beat my platoon sergeant's shotgun to the punch. I've been wanted dead, and I've wanted to kill.

 "I've heard the screams - 'Medic! Medic!' I've hauled dead civilians out of cars, and I've looked down at my hands and seen them covered in blood after putting some poor Iraqi civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time into a helicopter. I've seen kids with gunshot wounds, and I've seen kids who've tried to kill me.

"I've sworn at the radio when I heard one of my classmate's platoon sergeants call over the radio: 'Contact! Contact! IED, small arms, mortars! One KIA, three WIA!' Then a burst of staccato gunfire and a frantic cry: 'Red 1, where are you? Where are you?' as we raced to the scene...knowing full well we were too late for at least one of our comrades.

"I've heard men worry about civilians, and I've heard men shrug and sum up their viewpoint in two words - 'F--- 'em.' I've seen people shoot when they shouldn't have, and I've seen my soldiers take an extra second or two, think about it, and spare somebody's life.

"They say they're scared, and say they won't do this or that, but when it comes time to do it they can't let their buddies down, can't let their friends go outside the wire without them, because they know it isn't right for the team to go into the ballgame at any less than 100 percent.

"That's combat, I guess, and there's no way you can be ready for it. It just is what it is, and everybody's experience is different. Just thought you might want to know what it's really like."
YES, I've seen the elephant.






 DON'T BE BLUE 

Consequences => Choices

When I was learning to take tests, one of the benchmarks of taking tests was that anything with "All" in it, was false. Not so when it comes to the choices you make and the consequences that result. All choices have consequences!

Choices have 6 stages, related to the 5 senses plus one, which really could be plus 2 if you insert intuition.
Any or all of these could be involved in the consequences of the choices you make.
The first is just thinking about it. The more you just think about it, the more likely one of the 5 senses will come into play. But just thinking about it could be the point of no return in regards to the consequences that could result. Part of thinking about a choice could be effected by your intuition about the consequences, but intuition may not become cognizant until one of the 5 senses kicks in.

Any of the 5 senses could be the trigger to making the choice.
Smell and sight could be the first stage depending on which one becomes the one which jolts your mind, or hearing the known or unknown sound, or even the lack of sound.
A reflex action of touching something, the interaction of taste and smell because taste is largely dependent on smell.

The consequences though are time insensitive. The consequences of the choice you make could be instantaneous or not realized until after you die.
The quicker consequences are realized as being either good or bad or neither, the easier it is to change or reverse them if desired. The longer it takes to determine if it is good or bad, the less likely they can be changed or reversed. Most people just learn to live with consequences that don't cause them physical harm.

The point of No Return is the defining point of consequences. The point of no return doesn't usually start in an instant, it builds until turning back has escaped the thought process or the consequence has reached the tipping point of disaster and good consequences don't have a tipping point, they just are. Beyond the point of no return lies truth and the understanding that the sign posts along the way were missed.

I know you'll come back home Dorothy, when your return from OZ.




 DON'T BE BLUE 

Do we really need gun control? GET SERIOUS!

Do we really need gun control? 
YES, to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

No, Really, REGULATE THE BULLETS! 

We can and should regulate the sale of ammunition and the tools to make ammunition. 

One box per month per household! 

Seriously, if you need more than a half dozen rounds to bag that deer, moose, duck, pheasant or any other BIG game you are shooting at, you are a very poor shot. 
If you need to practice, go to a shooting range, which should be the only place you can buy more ammunition. Use it there, because you can't take it home.  You should have to turn in all of your spent shells in order to buy any more, that way you can't horde them.
Why do you need 5000 rounds of ammunition to protect your home? 
If you can't protect it with just a few rounds, MOVE!

And it should be against the law to send guns and/or ammunition through the mail, 

NO ONLINE ORDERS ALLOWED.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/no-really-regulate-the-bullets/266332/
It's already illegal to send explosives through the mail and bullets are explosives, we should be enforcing that law.

Every citizen has near instant access to firearms and ammunition trough the Internet!
The United States is so saturated with guns that seeking to control them is futile. People own and use guns made in the early 1800s; guns made last month are on sale in stores now. We have a centuries-old accumulation of armaments that shows no sign of evaporating.

But there are two things that are needed for a gun to work: 

the gun and the ammunition.

Well, ok, actually three, but let's take the uncontrollable human out of the equation. Limiting guns may be hopeless. So why don't we focus on the bullets? A gun can be made from any number of common household objects, they can even be made by 3D printers.
But making bullets is much, much trickier.

 Bullets are so easy to come by that that huge stockpiles exist throughout the country. But unlike guns, bullets are single use. While attempts to remove guns from the streets would either be incalculably slow or require heavy-handed, dangerous government action, curbing the ability to buy ammunition would mean a natural diminishment of the arsenal that remains. Every time a bullet is fired, that bullet is rendered useless forever.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of limiting ammunition, though, is this. The mantra of firearms advocates is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say a single thing about 
THE RIGHT TO OWN BULLETS!

Bear all the arms you want. Make your own at home. Without a bullet to fire from it -- or, at the very least, far, far fewer bullets -- we can achieve what the Founding Fathers really sought: a stable & secure nation.

This bears repeating:
Do we really need gun control? 
Yes to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

"THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH......

IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO.....

NOTHING!"

Which is exactly what the United States Congress is doing----------NOTHING!

 DON'T BE BLUE