Hype and Hysteria

With elections comes a lot of annoying hype. Especially when it concerns social media, friendships are strained because of the constant barrage of political opinions. The best approach to hype is to rise above it. So lets take a higher approach and look at what it is all about.

First and foremost, there is the subject of click bait. Now that newspapers and magazines are on their way out, advertisers cannot place adds in between each page. They hope you will click on that sensational article in your news feed. Advertisers and web hosts get paid for the volume of clicks they produce. If you share it, the clicks can be exponential. When a person goes to read most articles it contains the usual drivel that everyone hears constantly. The other side is crazy, a Nazi, had affairs, lied; just take your pick among soap opera dramas. Every political opinion will use extremes to get their points across. A leftist will characterize all successful people as uncaring and lucky. A person on the right will characterize the poor as unappreciative and lazy. This can be expected in every election and yet we click and share hype filled articles and annoy others by sharing. Since liberals represent those who want government expansion, it would follow that private citizens to them are corrupt. A conservative will want minimal government and so it would follow that the government is corrupt to them. If you are a liberal, you know that and so do conservatives. Posting articles will not convince anyone to change their opinion but it does fill the coffers of those who make a living off extreme views. These articles don't educate anyone.

The reality is that everyone has their gaffs and everyone has their good moments. But sound byte peddlers will try to put what will produce the most hysteria and therefore hits. Everyone says things they regret and things that can put them in a bad light. Gone is sticking with issues since they don't produce many clicks. Yet we should be looking at what strengths a candidate has and what they have to offer that will strengthen us together as a nation. No one goes into public office originally to hurt the people they represent. It is up to us to chose those who are more apt to show good leadership. No one really likes a good boss at work. A good boss will challenge us to do better and will make sure the business does well so our jobs will stay. These decisions aren't always popular. The best person is the one who will make hard decisions that will benefit everyone.

The Bubble

When I was driving the other day, a person cut me off and honked their horn as though I was the perpetrator. My wife started ranting about the driver so I told her that I was putting a bubble around that person for her and all their stress will need to stay there. It wasn't that I despised the person or thought less of them. I used to be that person with deadlines, late for picking up the kids or just feeling behind and wanting to be in control of traffic. But things happened in life that made my peace of mind too valuable for such things.

My life since I was a kid was ran by crisis. It was a continuous cycle of moving from one to another. There were family, work, political, and religious crisis that constantly demanded my attention. Everyone just ranted while nothing ever changed. I realized that if there wasn't a crisis, someone was going to make one up. I had become addicted to resolving them. This pursuit had taken time away from good relationships. The same went for most of the people I knew in the aforementioned areas.

Through experience I have learned that certain people are prone to drama, every job force has certain tendencies, politicians get elected on solving exaggerated crisis and religions make persuasive arguments out of nothing. I find substantive conversations to be a breath of fresh air. Many others I have met seem to feel the same way.

The way to deal with crisis is to look at life's obstacles objectively with confidence and determination while enjoying every breath of air. Time is far too valuable and scarce to be ground up in crisis cycles. This isn't an excuse for a lack of ambition or passion. I have plenty of that. But constructive behavior is all I am interested in any more. If there is virtue, praise or enjoyment, I am all in. Yet crisis mongers persist in every area. Staying above it is easier said than done, but the struggle to stay out of crisis isn't going to turn into a crisis either. My immediate environment is one thing that is always under my control when nothing else seems that way.

A Heart to Rebuild

I was looking at historical pictures from last year and came across pictures of middle east towns that had been demolished by militants. Having been a builder, it is disgusting for all the positive effort of these individuals over the years to be demolished by thugs with ulterior motives. I want to take these refugees by the hand and help them not only overthrow the thugs, but rebuild somehow. It is disgusting when the citizens of any country become so oppressed that they have to escape out of necessity to survive. Granted, there are always people who travel to other countries to take advantage of the opportunities available. Expertise in different areas should be exchanged between countries. We can't equate people escaping oppression with those who are offering their expertise in exchange for wages.

Ideology can either help or be a detriment to helping individuals have a good life. People get stuck on religious or political labels. There are two ways to acquire things in life, work or plunder. People will use deceptive words and work under the auspice of compassion to disguise their actions when they chose to plunder. Work consists of exchanges agreed upon by individuals as having certain value for both sides where both walk away satisfied that the exchange was close enough to equal. The definition of equal is the only area of conflict in these transactions. Someone who plunders wants to skip all the formalities of making agreements and just take what they want without working for it. Some do this through manipulation and others through force. Either way, the transaction is unjust since one party loses their ability to choose through deception or force of arms.

My heart goes out to all those who have to leave their homelands to escape oppression. It seems odd to me that those who have anger about the take over of North America by Europeans wouldn't have a desire to fight for those who are forced from their homes in other countries. There are two things we can observe about the successful rebuilding of the aggressive countries involved in World War II. The foreign enemy was forced to surrender and humiliated to the point where few wanted to support their ideology any more. Second is that armies went into the countries that were devastated, kept order and rebuilt them. They knew well that pulling out before either was completed would have caused a repeat down the road. They cycle of dependency and oppressive regimes needed to be broken. It can take a couple of generations before this can be done completely.

Calling attempts at helping others rebuild, Colonialism, is also a gross misrepresentation of what people are trying to do. One goal is to get people to the point where their transactions can be voluntary among themselves. Let value be set while labor and expertise are given by individuals in a free exchange so everyone can walk away with their families safe and fed.

This seems like a pipe dream in the light of the given situation in the world, but starting out in one middle eastern country was a good idea. I still think the only answer is to occupy to keep order and to help rebuild is the only real answer to refugee situations. We owe this kind of help to the rest of the world. Rather than feeling guilty about wealth to justify confiscating more, maybe we should be using it and our military to give others a good environment to succeed themselves. Once a place is safe, out of work people who have expertise can go over and help. It is this kind of exposure that wins hearts.

Carte Blanche

We applaud those who have achievement in their fields of study: business, philosophy, religion, science and politics. But achievement in one area doesn't give one super powers to understand every area. An actor or a singer might have achieved popularity due to their art but their opinions in areas other than acting or singing are no better than a person on the street who has also studied the subject out. This holds true for every area. A scientist who has achievements in one discipline may not have any more knowledge in another area than a bus driver. A religious leader who is good at speculating on eternal things has no more knowledge in secular issues than a common person who studies the subject out. Having a degree in education doesn't make one an expert in business. This is the fallacy of notoriety. Everyone is due respect concerning their achievement but we shouldn't give anyone carte blanche for all their opinions.

When we look at net worth, personal possessions are a small portion of it. A person who is wealthy will have their money invested. With investments the goal is to find someone who is managing their business well but lacks finances to advance. We give them money to get the equipment and personnel they need in hopes that they will succeed and share a small portion of the profits. Rich people, retirees and young people planning for the future will participate in investing. The recipients will do their best to keep the equipment and personnel working so the profits keep coming. These relationships are healthy and the personnel will be able to take care of their families and invest themselves. Having a high net worth means a person has helped a lot of others to succeed.

We all have a desire to feed both our ego and our compassion. Filling this appetite is good and gives us motivation. When running a country, business or a household, we have to set limits on these areas to avoid failure. A business that gives to charity but neglects it's worker's wages will have a hard time keeping good workers. A household that takes in more people than it can provide for will starve eventually. Managing things well allows us to achieve our dreams and there is always a point where we have to limit how much we help others. A prodigal is someone who uses up their resources for popularity. It doesn't matter if it is ego driven or compassion driven, when they end up running out of resources, everyone suffers. Profits that are earned on a business that is in debt don't really belong to the company but to the investors. To use these profits for play or charity is unjust. It is up to the investors to give these profits to whom they themselves choose. A country in debt is obligated to their investors. If they default, everyone suffers. If a country still has poor of it's own while owing debt, they have no business taking in more poor people. This is prodigal behavior and it risks the dreams of all its citizens.

Staying in Your Lane

Driving through a couple of towns I had grown up in, I became frustrated because traffic went so slow. The old four and five lanes I was familiar with had been turned into three lanes with bike trails. I have never seen a bike in one of the trails and it seemed unfair that slow drivers could control the road. The towns were so much more vibrant when I was young and living in them. A part of it was the dynamics of a five lane road.

On a three lane road, there are less accidents according to studies. The reason of course is that all the traffic is forced to go at the pace of the slowest driver. People who want to get somewhere, or fast paced people, are forced to slow to the pace of those who want to dawdle through life. People who have business to attend to or simply want to get from one end of town to the other must have their pace dictated by vacationers and Sunday drivers. This is a microcosm of the pitfalls of social control that applies to every area of life. Controlling the group with micromanagers always sounds good in theory but it kills ambition.

On a four and five lane road, the left lane is for fast paced and the right for slow. Some states value their fast paced people so much that they put warning signs up for the slow people to stay in the right lane where they belong. Good people respect that and the fast laners can wave at the slow people as they go by. Nothing wrong with going slow and on easy days a fast pacer might enjoy the slow lane for a while. Problems occur when slow drivers become controlling and want to control traffic by driving in the left lane. They end up getting their way all the time with three lane roads. The four lane system is the more vibrant and fun. I suppose left turners on a four lane can cause a bit more lane switching but it isn't a problem for alert drivers. Anything is better than being caught behind a slow driver.

In school it was the same way. The entire class went at the pace of the slowest learner. I enjoyed self paced classes for that reason. It can be hard for a fast paced student to sit still in a slow paced class. We have ambitious people in a society who work hard to get ahead too. Those who are satisfied with status quo and below will have the resultant lifestyle. Neither attitude is an evil to society but when social planners hold ambition back by championing status quo and demonizing ambition, incentive suffers. There are periods in our lives where we may become poorer and slower paced due to retirement or disability. But regardless the reason, each person should be respected and encouraged where they are at. We should make room for them; a right lane so to speak. Successful people should also be respected and allowed to continue uninhibited. Profits are the result of good management and a good demand for the service. None of this is evil. Lets give them a left lane.

There are always impatient drivers at one extreme and ornery slowpokes at the other. But this doesn't mean that every fastlaner and slowlaner should be characterized as such. Perhaps our kids should be taught tolerance and to enjoy differences in ambitions. We could call it pacial discrimination. Don't criticize those who are fast paced, step aside, and let them pass. Be patient with those who are slow, give them a lane, and let them enjoy.

I like the dynamics of having fast and slow lanes. Studies show that variety gives us longevity in life. Wave at me as I pass you going to work and I will wave back as you pass me on your way. I'll have fun enjoying the view and I hope you make it to work on time!

Masculine verses Feminine

I've recently read a book called "The Way of a Superior Man" by David Deida. It is more of a spiritualist's view on the dynamics between men and women. Although it is a bit lewd at times and neutral as far as gender and religion go, he still makes valid points concerning masculinity and femininity. It is hard to do a book justice with a summary, but we can hit on a few points.

Anyone can show masculine and feminine traits in their lives. Those who are in the masculine role in life will crave feminine energy and vice versa. When we embrace who we are and enjoy the energy opposites give us, we become satisfied. First we need to define these roles and not be ashamed of them.

The emphasis of the book is how a man can be masculine and meet the needs of his woman. This not only allows her to feel satisfied in life, but his needs will be met in the process. When two don't get along or when changes occur in life, problems in passions usually can be traced back to a lack of embracing roles in life.

The feminine characteristics are more emotional and yet are true for the moment. To the masculine, they seem chaotic at times. She is going to test the one in the male role to his limits. But what she is after is a man who is nonplused by it. There are also cool comforting feminine traits. These comfort a man especially when he is under a lot of stress in his life.

Masculine traits that the feminine desires are decisiveness and mission. She might want a role in decisions but becomes settled when her man makes them. She might have a broad spectrum of wants and desires, but likes it when a man makes plans to satisfy them. If a woman is bitchy and unsatisfied, a man has to look at two possibilities, either he isn't fulfilling his role or she isn't the right person for him.

When a man has a stressful and chaotic life, he will gravitate toward someone with the cool comforting traits. When things are going well and he is confident, he will gravitate toward someone who has more fire and is emotional. This is why a guy might get involved with an office girl when a job is stressful and why, after life has settled, he might crave an emotional person. When a female who has fire and is emotional becomes more confident and secure, she might become comfortable with a male who is more spontaneous and free.

One point he makes is that a sexual relationship is for two committed people. The "reach a climax and die" part of sex will leave both unsatisfied without the rest of the relationship. When life changes bring us to the point of different wants, it doesn't always involve changing partners. He gives ideas on how to get the traits we desire out of the person we are with. For instance, he says that doing everything together causes our traits to dull against each other and for contrast, women should be encouraged to go out and celebrate their feminity. Males should go out with the guys and party once and a while too.

There should be no issue with enjoying and drawing energy from those who have the traits we desire. We should drink it in and enjoy it as long as it doesn't complicate our lives. He gives advice to males on how to avoid turning the good energy between opposites into sensual desire. Of course this is only a quick summary, I think this is a book that every young man should read.    

Supreme Court

I like to keep this a forum of clear thinking without dogma. It is hard to make points using sarcasm and humor when writing because it is too easy for readers to get the wrong idea and think you are being mean. Another pitfall to avoid is that of tearing down structures around us to make ours look bigger. What is presented here should stand on its own merit without having to resort to characterizations.

In the past, we have gone over Aristotle's teachings and I am going to continue these of expositions on my other site therationalelement.com. There are good things stirring around there. This site is really for honest opinions that have a some thought applied. I am hoping it is nice for you all to step aside from the hype of our media culture for a bit and just look at things objectively and optimistically. 

With the recent Supreme Court decisions, we should spend a little time sorting them out. Regardless what laws are passed in a land, people who have good character and are willing to keep themselves sharp in mind and body will be okay. I am not one who ascribes to the decay of society teachings or apocalyptic notions. Our struggle is within ourselves to make the best of successes, failures, and random events every day. Things can happen at any time that turns a culture around from a perk based society to a survival based one. All we can do just work hard and enjoy the show. 

Both Court decisions are related in some ways. First concerning the subsidies for health care; they are a way to equalize the benefits of insurance for everyone. Those who can't afford insurance are forced to get it from exchanges and those under a certain income will have taxpayers paying part of their insurance. This is a boon for insurance companies and hospitals since not only do they get more insured people but they aren't forced to cover as many people who don't carry insurance. This makes every individual responsible to insure themselves. It all sounds good, but the problem is how to get the taxpayer base to pay for it all since we are already in steep debt. The only thing missing in the equation is much higher taxes. Allowing an impersonal entity make health decisions can also be an issue, but that happens already on a corporate level. The intention is to get healthcare as a right for everyone. This eventually will turn into a single pay system with the government directly paying for everyone to get equal health care. The next obstacle will be overcome through demonizing insurance companies. The methods will be unreasonable demands with little payback and then showcasing the lack of care while the supposedly rich insurance company executives live high on the hog. Wealthy politicians, however, will be presented with an angelic aura. We can only guess how long it will take to get there. But again we can stay healthy and live well while giving random tragedies our best efforts. 

Love isn't something that can be qualified by legal means. If it is there, it is there. People of like minds will be attracted to each other, sometimes cohabit, while some do so and have sex. None of this requires legal intervention. What is the benefit of marriage from a legal standpoint? It gives instant dowry rights where everything is shared and upon a death the other gets it all and makes medical decisions. But this can be accomplished through legal partnerships. There is also shared family insurance. This is where these two decisions are related. If anyone can go in and claim they are in love, marry and thus share insurance, the insurance companies may eventually be forced to eliminate family riders. Housewives will then have to fend for themselves. Our hero appears, "The Affordable Care Act". Housewives will be forced to buy insurance like any poor person since they have no income. We're back to equal care for everyone. The caveat would be if the household income is too high due to the husband, they may force them to pay the high premiums entirely. Quite a tax on the middle class. Subsidized things are always overpriced; just look at college tuition. But this is all conjecture at this point. I will admit that things should be nice for a while for the insurance companies and the medical industry as with any new program. Remember though, Margaret Thacher once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".