Category: Politics

Let’s use Common Sense for once! We don’t need another crisis. Learn!

Does it take skill to win at bingo or solitaire? I think solitaire takes a little, but it’s mostly how the cards fall. Bingo is random and based upon persistence and luck of the draw.

Can any enterprise survive, if too many betters win? If you think through the gaming adds, you discover that they are political. Who gets what, when and how. To have a profitable gambling enterprise, you need losers. They provide purses and profits.

you can’t force right thoughts, just as you can’t legislate morality. We can’t even agree what right thinking is. We may all agree we don’t like the consequences of a loss . What is the answer?

Some in a free society will act irresponsibly. People must employ their God given intelligence in any economic system. If there is money won, someone lose in any for profit economy. The company may use the thrill of a quick first win as a psychological hook, but must have many lose their bets to make money. Winning is a temporary loss leader. Eventually, more must lose or there will be no profit for the company.

Do I think the upcoming crisis can be averted by legislation? Hell no! You can’t demand people think. All gamblers believe they are the one, the winners and someone will win, but many, many more will lose. It’s a numbers game. So how do we stop this? We don’t! Free people can make terrible choices! Society will survive! Yes, some will face bankruptcy, Choices have consequences.Homelessness will result and some children will even do without. Even in an authoritarian dictatorship, people still gamble despite dictatorial prohibitions and draconian consequences. Free people have to educate themselves, then just observe. No amount of regulation will convince the masses they aren’t the winners nor will it serve society to try!

So what’s next for us? Liberals will beat their chests and moderates will agree, as they always do, to regulations to limit the advertising claims or try gambling prohibition again. Only the consequences of loss, will force the learning. No learning will be done without consequences. Have we learned nothing from our educational institutions and its unwarranted promotions? No tests with consequences means lessons aren’t learned. Why do we continue to repeat the errors of our past? We despise loss.

The Courts abhor a forfeiture, so no consequences. This means no learning! Once again the ultimate super legislature ( the judiciary) will act to save us from ourselves! God bless judges and their omnipotent hindsight. They don’t learn either. Always substitute their judgement for the judgement of those in the situation.

We can always just continue take from those, who accumulate wealth until we have a big enough bill that no one will want our debt. Yes, and no one will suffer, except eventually we all will! Government can’t be your daddy or mommy!

So, what’s the answer? Some must lose! If that’s you and your parents caused it, that is lousy! To many just Unacceptable, but life! If you caused it , learn from your personal failure. Perhaps you will learn and get another chance or perhaps the next generation may learn from your loss, perhaps not.

I fear we will opt for increased regulation and relive prohibition all over again except with gambling this time. No one learns! All lose! So i say use common sense now and accept that some will choose against their interest with consequences. This won’t be a crisis unless we opt to think we can think for others!

.

Endangered Species Act: A Barrier to Progress?

The endangered Species Act, is the legal framework, which environmental groups rely upon to delay or completely block, many human favoring commercialization projects. This law taught as scientific fact to most grade school children, is based upon the premise that nature’s environment is a fragile, unadaptive process, which must be protected from unwanted human intervention. It matters not that this premise is inconsistent with the liberal sacred truth of “evolution”. Roll over Charles Darwin! The left advances this new tenet to its doomsday religious cult, Biome fragility and food chain stasis! Adaptation is the real myth, they contend!

Suppose that sacred “mother earth” will survive without this 1970’s vintage artificial construct foisted upon us and dressed in legal prose with supposed noble intentions!

Suppose sacred ancient greek mother god Gaia is an idol, worshipped only by foolish global elite liberals? Itself an accepted, but now nationally adopted, state religion.

Is this a thinly veiled constitutional work around by the non Christian liberal left?This could be a true state established religion promoted by environmental activists.

What would happen, if this idol worship was eliminated? Our nation and the world would survive and advance through human ingenuity. Of course as in all of human history, the pendulum may swing too far, paving the way for the liberal elites’s next resurgence, but the World would survive! Humans make mistakes as with this monstrosity, but humans and our planet will survive.

Fragility is a human construct, born of timid decision makers afraid of their position in society. It is 1070’s policy and is incompatible with the liberal view of how the species advance!

Real decision makers understand that knowledge is a journey, yet to be completed not the current consensus of supposed scientific experts. Yes, some errors will be made and my seem insurmountable or difficult to bear, but so is the dearth of human innovation and liberal elitist religious fervor contained in this act. Imagine all the inventions not proffered because their implementation would be too difficult and blocked by activist judges. Where could we be absent these Activist handcuffs?

So, I recommend allowing more decisions be made by market forces. Our environmental biome simply isn’t frail! The earth has survived even the terrible decisions of the past. Fragility is an unsupported new concept, even contrary to the liberal global elites’ views on “ evolution “.
It’s time to remove the social governor imposed upon human innovation by adoption of global fragility! This isn’t advocation of “ trashing our environment “, rather removal of innovation killing judicially imposed environmental fragility. Time to rethink the endangered species act. Toss out that 70’s documentary “ The China Syndrome! Time to trust that humanity will act in innovative ways and find solutions to problems both created and inherited! If error is made, it can be corrected!


Perhaps more “ turtle preservation methods” are needed? Will there be insufficient “ turtle advocates”? Perhaps because of human short sightedness. Perhaps because turtle adaptations will provide for survival or perhaps the answer is extinction? Both are “ natural “ processes in the liberal religion. Yet the stalwart liberal knows better! He can see all potential outcomes!

so, I contend the endangered species act ought to gain its historical place upon the “trash pit” along with its 70’s counterpart, the now famous documentary of the left “ the China syndrome”.

The Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on whether children of illegal immigrants are automatically U.S. citizens, leaving the current interpretation unchallenged. This is per an AI that in a prior question lectured me about birthright citizenship! So we have only speculation!

Playing with statistics and sound bites to secure your program or project!

Consult the latest poll. A poll is only a snapshot in time. Sometimes polls render relevant snapshots that can provide true voter insights. Others are simply fodder for an 24/7 news media in need of the latest irrelevant story. Polls at this time are relevant only to the talking heads seeking a seemingly relevant storyline.

Everyone plays the game the same, but it’s simpler, when your proposing new program spending that has some human suffering attached as visible proof of the existence of human need. You only have to disguise the level of need so that if it is a small group and could be addressed by a charity or possibly the proposal will not be a good expenditure, it still has victims. So , if it can save but one life, approve it. It’s also easy to attach favorable expectations to the would be nominee.
If a problem is too small, only state the national number of instances. Remember the mantra, if it saves a single life, possibly, you must approve. Of course with a program there will still be unreached, simply don’t ever mention that number.-A country of 330 million will have a large number of instances of any perceived problem. No where near the largest total of fatalities or victimization found in other circumstances but a large number because we are a large country. (Witness Covid fatalities and Biden’s use of numbers).

Since we all adopted government as our salvation, we have actively sought government solutions to almost all societal issues! Many suburban Republicans ( especially suburban Republican women)will rally their support for any problem solving program because someone is in need somewhere within our country and we are so rich, there can be no need! It’s not fair! Never use cost benefit analysis, always let emotions dictate policy. ( Never let available victims go to waste)( This is the mantra of government salvation syndrome

So if a critical thinker, always ask for the percentage affected by the problem. Can an existing charity or non government group effectively manage the problem? Is there even a real need or will to have a program for this perceived problem? Ask what percentage of the problem will remain post legislation? If the answer to either question is extremely small percentage or if others could handle, there is no need for government solution.

Gun control is a great example of this situation at play in the real world. No one believes we can physically remove even most guns.

Gun laws simply don’t solve the violence problem! There will always be a non compliant or “loose” neighboring jurisdiction say the proponents. ( witness the city of Chicago). Sometimes free people may choose badly and terrible consequences can result.

Bad choices will be made even with strict gun legislation. Is the loss of freedom or inconvenience ( cost ) worth the cost? Then ask the would proposed “ common sense gun laws” have stopped any mass shootings? Are gun control states less violent? Are existing laws even enforced. Will existing guns simply go away? Jot down your answer. Then decide. Remove your emotional bias!