Interesting Times Indeed.

—  “May you live in interesting times.”

An English expression, which supposedly is a translation of a traditional “Chinese curse”.

Although it sounds more like a blessing, the expression is normally used ironically. The implied understanding is that “uninteresting times” of peace and tranquillity are more life-fulfilling than interesting ones. From a historical perspective, “interesting times”, suggest disorder and conflict.

No known source has been attributed to the expression, and there’s only a similar phrase according to sources better informed than myself.  The similar phrase does catch the concept.

—  “Better to be a dog in a peaceful time, than to be a human in a chaotic (warring) period.”

—  “World history is not the ground of happiness. The periods of happiness are empty pages in her.”  —  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

How Society Uses Politics to Decide What’s Racist

The reaction to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s past use of blackface shows how racism gets defined by politics, not morality. Is that a good thing?

 By THEODORE R. JOHNSON |February 06, 201

Northam’s decades-old racist behavior does not inherently suggest he lacks the moral acuity to govern now. If he is to be taken at his word—that he is not racist, ardently supports civil rights and is genuinely horrified by his past attitudes and actions—then his growth and maturation could be seen as evidence of his fitness for office.

This distinction, however, is immaterial because his moral failing in the past is a political liability today. And, especially on matters of racism, politics—and the defining of what is and is not a liability—polices the boundaries of what we’re willing to accept as a society.

We live at a time that seems more interested in finding social approval than a basis for moral judgement. There’s a philosophy of relativism, without moral absolutes. Right and wrong are an opinion based on current trend and social acceptance.

Somehow, what people have done 30+ years ago is relevant but the current taking of innocent life isn’t. Note, recent decisions by some local governments on abortion at full term.  What people won’t do to puppies or kittens, they appear to have no hesitation in killing babies.

Stealing from people you don’t like is OK, as long as it’s not you or someone you know. Recommendations by some for taxes up to 80 or 90% on the wealthy.

Men lie about rape, women never do. (Unwritten rules probably inscribed in stone).

Men who claim strong religious faith find new ways to lie to the public.

Rules and laws are subject to adherence on the basis of how you personally feel? See sanctuary cities in defiance of federal law. Pay no attention to the parts of the U.S. which at one time went to war over how they felt about sovereignty and slavery.

So, what’s right or wrong? It looks to be all relative.
What do you think?

How do you start your day? They say breakfast is an important meal that shouldn’t be skipped. What about your brain? What do you ingest the first few hours of your day?

Starting Your Day on the Internet Is Damaging Your Brain

You can either start you day with junk food for the brain (the internet, distracting apps, etc) or you can start the day with healthy food for the brain (reading, meditation, journaling, exercising, etc). When you start the day with junk food for the brain, you put yourself at a self imposed handicap that inhibits your ability to get into flow and prevents you from doing deep work. When you start the day with health food for your brain, the exact opposite happens.
 By Srinivas Rao September 18, 2017

•

[- – – -]

Why is This so Difficult?

Here we are again. . .
Politicians are speaking to their most loyal and influential adherents of their respective parties. Meanwhile nothing of value gets done. Some see this as a good thing, I see it as dysfunctional adults behaving more like children rather than leaders.

To ignore our broken immigration process and to say, just let them in, is to ignore the reality of what is happening to the lives of all involved. For those who say, just let them all in, can we do that? Are the consequences for those involved (not those of us sitting in our over stuffed chairs), mostly positive?

Can we at least admit to ourselves, setting our political and personality hatreds aside for a moment, there are things going on which may require ignoring media pundits and think for ourselves.

I can’t tell you, nor should I, that what is right for others, maybe the perspective needed. I need not tell you that there’s more to what’s going on over the southern border arguments than the personalities of the strange and delirious Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi.

What I can suggest is, how do you conduct your personal lives with respect to people you don’t know? Do you leave your home with doors unlocked? Do you invite a neighbor in for coffee and then find they want to stay in your home? They like your bathroom toilets are not clogged and the kitchen dishes are clean and put away, so why not stay in your place? Since your personal generosity has been extended, and they’re asking to sleep in your main bedroom, why not toss them your car keys? They really don’t mind you continuing to make those hefty car payments, but can you do something about changing those radio station selections?

I don’t know about how you conduct your lives, but I’m kinda selfish. Oh I don’t mind helping out a neighbor. I’ve mostly been generous with my money and time. I do have my limits. I lock my doors, hold on to my car keys from strangers, and I don’t have unlimited resources where I can let anyone take over my house while I foot the bill(s). No, I won’t let someone else take over my house payment and car note just because they like mine better than theirs.

I’m even a bit peeved when someone insists I don’t share whatever someone else wants because I have a specific dislike for their accent, language, religion, or skin color. Somehow, laying on guilt or definition changes to words, doesn’t make me want to use as much of my time and material resources just to make you or someone else happy. I’ve tried that before and all I ended up with were a bunch of bills, ugly names, and an unending cycle of guilt tripping because I was never working or budgeting enough to satisfy the demands of the other party.

Your choices may be different.

BTW, can I come over and eat your food, and maybe take your car for a spin? I’m sorry your car ended up in a ditch, you know you should have been spending more on maintaining a proper vehicle.

That’s maybe too obtuse for some to understand, but that’s my immigration speech for today. Come back tomorrow after you watch more of your favorite news and commentary to tell me how xenophobic and uncaring I am.

 

Drifting Anchors in Political Agendas

As of this moment, we have a federal government shutdown. The consequences of this are more opportunities to cast aspersions on President Trump, and to discuss the main reason for this shutdown.

In case anyone has been put to sleep over the reasons for this shutdown, it’s these basic ideas. President Trump wants it, therefore the Democrats don’t. If they stop his ideas on immigration, they believe this will gain them more political juice to win the next round of elections in 2020.

Opinions from various sources argue anything they believe will win an argument. Some politicos claim a wall built on the border to Mexico is immoral, stand ins say, there shouldn’t be borders, while others insist we need a wall to keep out people from coming in without authorization and without our knowledge.

No matter your opinion on the need or the possibility of improved national security, there are those who care nothing more than to see President Trump fail. Regardless of national or individual consequences, there are people who not only want to Trump to fail, they would like to see him in prison. It’s gotten to that level of hatred.

LET’S REVIEW

Nineteen years ago two fishermen plucked an exhausted, frightened five-year-old tied to an inner tube out of the waters off the coast of Ft. Lauderdale.

President William Clinton with the aid of Janet Reno, blocked the immigration and asylum of this 5-year-old Cuban child.

April 22, 2000 — In a pre-dawn raid, armed U.S. federal agents seize Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives. Elian is reunited with his father a few hours later. But it will take two months before Elian and his father would go back to Cuba–two months of court procedures and demonstrations and counter-demonstrations in Miami.

June 1, 2000 — A federal appeals court upholds the U.S. government’s authority to deny Elian a political asylum hearing.

Prior to and at the beginning of the 2000’s top liberal Democrats espoused hawkish immigration policies. The decline of membership in industrial unions, long an electoral bulwark for Democrats, weakened the party’s dependence on working-class whites. The Democrats have learned their strengths at the ballot box lay in courting groups of identity politics, social justice cause people. They’ve assumed that they already “own” the minority vote.

After meeting with President Trump to try to resolve the details of the final spending bill of the 115th Congress, soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California stated, “Democrats will stand fast against the immoral, ineffective border wall.”

Likewise, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York threatened to shut down the government if funding for a border wall is part of the legislative package.

SHIFTING SANDS OF POLITICS

In 2006, 80 U.S. Senators, including Senator Schumer, along with Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, and several others supported a bill that authorized 700 miles of fencing on our southern border, called the Secure Fence Act. They also voted to support a barrier in 2013. All 52 Democrats, plus Senators Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Angus King, I-Maine, voted in favor of the 2013 bill, which died in the House.

In 2013 Senator Schumer helped create a bill that was part of a bill that had $8 billion earmarked for a wall, with an additional $42 billion for securing the border in other ways.

Hillary Clinton, who was critical of President Trump’s plan during the 2016 presidential campaign, also supported fencing along the border and bragged as recently as November 2015 about her previous votes as senator on the issue.

At a campaign event in New Hampshire, a woman asked Clinton about securing the border from illegal immigrants, Clinton said: “Well, look I voted numerous times when I was a Senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in and I do think you have to control your borders.”

Democrat Dianne Feinstein’s 1994 campaign aired a television ad, with shadowy figures, accusing Republican rival Michael Huffington of being soft on illegal immigration.

“While Congressman Huffington voted against new border guards, Dianne Feinstein led the fight to stop illegal immigration,” th e ad declared. In her own voice, Feinstein boasted of seeking more border guards, lighting and fencing. Today, Senator Feinstein is a very vocal critic of California’s chorus of complaints about President Donald Trump’s border security agenda and crackdown on illegal aliens.

President Bill Clinton took steps in the mid-1990’s with Feinstein’s support, to increase border security in California. They were effective, making crossing into California so difficult that the flow shifted eastward into Arizona.

WHY THE CHANGE?

Democrats now argue, sanctuary city policies make communities safer by allowing local law enforcement to focus on community policing with cooperation from undocumented residents. Democratic leaders say they won’t support any bill that includes a dime of funding for Trump’s wall. Notice how the shift toward border security is identified with President Trump. The Democrats hope preventing funding will solidify their base, and their base is expanding.

The League of Women Voters, a group whose mission is to “Empower Voters” has challenged proof of citizenship on federal mail voter registration forms in Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia.

Despite support for the measure, a federal appeals court has blocked the requirement, allowing people to vote without providing proof of citizenship.

The League of Women Voters argues that “this action has illegally kept voters from the polls, caused confusion, and threatened the lawful voter registration efforts of the League and other groups.”

In July of 2018, the Department of Elections issued voter registration forms to illegal aliens to vote for members of the San Francisco Board of Education in the 2018 election.

California has implemented a law providing for the automatic voter registration of motorists who obtain or renew driver’s licenses. Some 605,000 undocumented immigrants who live in California were granted driver’s licenses in 2015, the first year they have been able to enjoy that benefit, officials said.

The law known as AB60 took effect on January 2, 2015. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) expects a total of about 1.4 million people will get their license under the law by late 2017. While it’s true that undocumented residents living in California can obtain driver’s licenses, the state has not passed any laws that also provide them the right to vote. The New Motor Voter Act was passed in an effort to improve voter turnout, and while this law does automatically register citizens to vote when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses, that action only applies to citizens who have already attested and/or documented an eligibility to vote.

The bottom line, incremental alterations to federal laws have already begun in heavily populated Democrat controlled cities. These changes have included sanctuary cities, voting rights afforded to previously banned residents, and laws against the rights outlined in the Constitution for ordinary citizens to protect themselves. It’s not sufficient to oppose another political party, there’s an all out effort to dominate politics through the ballot box, legislative, and judicial decree. Meanwhile the average citizen will be left less secure, and eventually powerless to defend themselves or their property.